9WIW  7  T>  T"*^ir,'"l^lk^  ."npw'|.  «»■» 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-S) 


#<>, 


{^^     «',i 


^(3 


1.0 


I.I 


i;i|2i 

la 

^     hi 


i^  ilM 
^  IIIIIM 

2.0 


IL25  i  1.4 


1.8 


1.6 


<^      > 


Vi 


/ 


^. 


Hiotogiaphic 

^Sciences 

Corporation 


23  WfST  MAIN  STRUT 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  14SS0 

(716)  S72-4503 


■!>' 


V 


:\ 


\ 


•r"*" 

^'^  ^1\/^^ 


'^ 


'v- 


^0 

? 

CIHM/ICMH 

CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Collection  de 

Series. 

microfiches. 

■   ; 

1^ 

-  '■  i  ■       ' '                  '■■,;■'■'■■■■■■  :':'■■■■■  -■■' 

l> 

[g] 

Canadian  Institute  for  Historical  Microraproductions              instltut  Canadian  da  microraproductions  historiquas 

1980 

T'!T*>"' 


:--'#ij^irr^?^*-' 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notas/Notes  tachniques  at  bibliographiquas 


The  Institute  has  attempted  to  obtain  the  best 
original  copy  available  for  filming.  Features  of  this 
copy  which  may  be  bibllographically  unique, 
which  may  alter  any  of  the  images  in  the 
reproduction,  or  which  may  significantly  change 
the  usual  method  of  filming,  are  checked  below. 


□    Coloured  covers/ 
Couverture  de  couieur 


I      I    Covers  damaged/ 


D 


n 


D 


□ 


Couverture  endommagie 


Covers  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Couverture  restaur^  et/ou  peiliculAe 


Cover  title  missing/ 


I I    Le  titre  de  couverture  manque 

□    Coloured  maps/ 
Cartes  g6ographiques  en  couieur 


D 


Coloured  ink  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  black)/ 
Encre  de  couieur  (i.e.  autre  que  bieue  ou  noire) 


□    Coloured  plates  and/or  illustrations/ 
Planches  et/ou  illustrations  en  couieur 

□    Bound  with  other  material/ 
Reii6  avec  d'autres  documents 


Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortion 
along  interior  margin/ 

La  reliure  serr6e  peut  causer  de  I'ombre  ou  de  la 
distortion  le  long  de  la  marge  int^rieure 

Blank  leaves  added  during  restoration  may 
appear  within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these 
have  been  omitted  from  filming/ 
II  se  peut  que  certaines  pages  blanches  aJoutAes 
tors  d'une  restauration  apparaissent  dans  ie  texte, 
mais,  lorsque  cela  6tait  possible,  ces  pages  n'ont 
pas  6x6  filmdes. 

Additional  comments:/ 
Commentaires  suppl6mentaires; 


L'Institut  a  microfilm^  le  meiiieur  exempiaire 
qu'ii  iui  a  6t6  possible  de  se  procurer.  Les  details 
de  cet  exempiaire  qui  sont  peut-Atre  uniques  du 
point  de  vue  bibliographlque,  qui  peuvent  modifier 
une  image  reproduite,  ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une 
modification  dans  la  mdthode  normale  de  fiimage 
sont  indiquis  ci-dessous. 


□   Coloured  pages/ 
Pages  de  couieur 

□   Pages  damaged/ 
Pages  endommagies 

I      I    Pages  restored  and/or  laminated/ 


D 


Pages  restaurtes  et/ou  peilicul6es 

Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxei 
Pages  d6color6es,  tachet6es  ou  piqu6es 

Pages  detached/ 
Pages  d6tach6es 

Showthrough/ 
Transparence 

Quality  of  prir 

Qualit^  indgaie  de  i'impression 

Includes  supplementary  materit 
Comprend  du  mat  Ariel  suppldmentaire 

Only  edition  available/ 
Seule  Mition  disponible 


I      I  Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed/ 

I      I  Pages  detached/ 

I      I  Showthrough/ 

r~l  Quality  of  print  varies/ 

I      I  Includes  supplementary  material/ 

I — I  Only  edition  available/ 


Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata 
slips,  tissues,  etc..  have  been  refiimed  to 
ensure  the  best  possible  image/ 
Les  pages  totaiement  ou  partiellement 
obscurcies  par  un  feuillet  d'errata,  une  pelure. 
etc.,  ont  6x6  filmies  6  nouveau  de  fapon  6 
obtenir  la  meilleure  image  possible. 


r~~l/^his  item  is  filmed  at  the  reduction  ratio  checked  below/ 

1^    Ce  document  est  fiimd  au  taux  de  reduction  indiqu*  ci-dessous. 


10X 

14X 

18X 

22X 

28X 

aox 

"7 

12X 


16X 


20X 


24X 


28X 


32X 


The  copy  filmad  here  has  been  reproduced  thanks 
to  th*?  generosity  of: 

Morittot  Library 
University  of  Ottawa 


L'exemplaire  film6  fut  reproduit  grAce  A  la 
gAnArosit6  da: 

Bibiiothique  IMoritset 
University  d'Ottawa 


The  images  appearing  here  are  the  best  quality 
possible  considering  the  condition  and  legibility 
of  the  original  copy  and  in  keeping  with  the 
filming  contract  specifications. 


Les  images  suivantes  ont  6ti  reproduites  avec  le 
plus  grand  soin,  compte  tenu  de  la  condition  et 
de  la  nettetd  de  l'exemplaire  filmA,  et  en 
conformity  avec  les  conditions  du  contrat  de 
filmage. 


Original  copies  in  printed  paper  covers  are  filmed 
beginning  with  the  front  cover  and  ending  on 
the  last  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, or  the  back  cover  when  appropriate.  All 
other  original  copies  are  filmed  beginning  on  the 
first  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, and  ending  on  the  last  page  with  a  printed 
or  illustrated  impression. 


Les  exemplaires  originaux  dont  la  couverture  en 
papier  est  ImprimAe  sont  filmte  en  commenpant 
par  le  premier  plat  et  en  terminant  soit  par  la 
derniire  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration.  soit  par  le  second 
plat,  salon  le  cas.  Tous  les  autres  exemplaires 
originaux  sont  film6s  en  commenpant  par  la 
premiere  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration  et  en  terminant  par 
la  dernlAre  page  qui  comporte  une  telle 
empreinte. 


The  last  recorded  frame  on  each  microfiche 
shall  contain  the  symbol  —^-(meaning  "CON- 
TINUED ").  or  the  symbol  V  (meaning  "END"), 
whichever  applies. 


Un  des  symboles  suivants  apiuarattra  sur  la 
dernidre  image  de  cheque  microfiche,  selon  le 
CBs:  le  symbole  — ►  signif le  "A  SUIVRE".  le 
symbole  V  signifie  "FIN". 


Maps,  plates,  charts,  etc..  may  be  filmed  at 
different  reduction  ratios.  Those  too  large  to  be 
entirely  included  in  one  exposure  are  filmed 
beginning  in  the  upper  left  hand  corner,  left  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  as  many  frames  a^ 
required.  The  following  diagrams  illustrate  the 
method: 


Les  cartes,  planches,  tobleeux.  etc..  peuvent  dtre 
filmte  d  des  taux  de  reduction  diffArents. 
Lorsque  le  document  est  trop  grand  pour  Atre 
reproduit  en  un  seul  cliche.  11  est  filmi  A  partir 
de  I'angle  sup6rieur  gauche,  de  gauche  d  droite. 
et  de  haut  en  bas,  en  prenant  le  nombre 
d'images  nAcessaire.  Les  disgrammes  suivants 
illustrent  le  mithode. 


1 

2 

3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

I 


II 


C'  (lv,'CjOiA<^\SCX^^u^iT^ 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


IN 


MODERN  SCIENCE: 


STUDIES  OF  THE  RELATIONS  OF  SCIENCE  TO 

PREVALENT  SPECULATIONS  AND 

RELIGIOUS  BELIEF. 


BEIATG  THE  LECTURES  ON  THE  SAMUEL  A.  CROZER  FOUNDA 
TtON  IN  CONNECTION  IVITH  THE  CROZER  THEOLOG- 
ICAL SEMINARY,  FOR  1881. 


BV 


J.  W.  DAWSON,  LL.D.,  F.R.S.  Etc 


M 


PHILADELPHIA : 

AMERICAN  BAPTIST  PUBLICATION  SOCIETY 

i4ao  CHESTNUT  STREET. 


^JF- 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congreai,  In  the  year  x88a,  by  the 

AMERICAN  BAPTIST  PUBLICATION  SOCIETY, 
In  the  Office  of  the  librarian  of  Congreu,  at  WashingtMi. 


BL 

39 

jSZX 


WnrooTT  A  Thomboh, 
atemUgpen  and  Elaetntypent  l^Mada. 


PREFACE. 


THE  object  before  the  mind  of  the  author 
in  preparing  these  Lectures  was  to  pre- 
sent a  distinct  and  rational  view  of  the  present 
relation  of  scientific  thought  to  the  religious 
beliefs  of  men,  and  especially  to  the  Christian 
revelation. 

The  attempt  to  make  science,  or  specula- 
tions based  on  science,  supersede  religion  is 
one  of  the  prevalent  fancies  of  our  tim^  and 
pervades  much  of  the  popular  literature  of 
the  day.  That  such  attempts  can  succeed  the 
author  does  not  believe.  They  have  hitherto 
given  birth  only  to  such  abortions  as  Positiv- 
ism, Nihilism,  and  Pessimism. 

Thtfe  is,  however,  a  necessary  relation  and 
parallelism  of  all  truths,  physical  and  spiritual ; 
and  it  is  useful  to  clear  away  the  apparent 
antagonisms  which  proceed  from  partial  and 
imperfect  views,  and  to  point  out  the  hamfony 


!• 


6  PREFACE. 

which  exists  between  the  natural  and  the  spir- 
itual— ^between  what  man  can  learn  from  the 
physical  creation,  and  what  has  been  revealed 
to  him  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  To  do  this  with 
as  much  fairness  as  possible,  and  with  due 
regard  to  the  present  state  of  knowledge  and 
to  the  most  important  difficulties  that  are  like- 
ly to  be  met  with  by  honest  inquirers,  is  the 
purpose  of  the  following  pages. 

It  is  proper  to  add  that,  in  order  to  give  com- 
pleteness to  the  discussion,  it  has  been  neces- 
sary to  introduce,  in  some  of  the  lectures,  topics 
previously  treated  of  by  the  author,  in  a  similar 
manner,  in  publications  bearing  his  name. 

J.  W.  D; 

April,  i88a. 


CONTENTS. 


LECTURE  I. 

GENERAL  RELATIONS  OF  SCIENCE  AND  AGNOSTIC 
SPECULATION g 

LECTURE  II. 
THE  SCIENCE  OF  LIFE  AND  MONISTIC  EVOLUTION.    47 

LECTURE  IIL 

EA'OLUTION  AS  TESTED  BY  THE  RECORDS  OF  THE 
ROCKS ,<^ 

LECTURE  IV. 
THE  ORIGIN  AND  ANTIQUITY  OF  MAN 137 

LECTURE  V. 
NATURE  AS  A  MANIFESTATION  OF  MIND 175 

LECTURE   VI. 
SCIENCE  AND  REVELATION 317 

r 


I. 


GENERAL   RELATIONS 


OP 


Science  and  Agnostic  Speculation. 


LECTURE    I. 


GENERAL  RELATIONS  OF  SCIENCE  AND  AGNOSTIC 

SPECULATION. 

THE  infidelity  and  the  contempt  for  sa- 
cred and  spiritual  things  which  pervade 
SO  much  of  our  modern  literature  are  largely 
attributable  to  the  prevalence  of  that  form  of 
philosophy  which  may  be  designated  as  Agnos- 
tic Evolution,  and  this  in  its  turn  is  popularly 
regarded  as  a  result  of  the  pursuit  of  physical 
and  natural  science.  The  last  conclusion  is 
obviously  only  in  part,  if  at  all,  correct,  since  it 
is  well  known  that  atheistic  philosophical  specu- 
lations were  pursued,  quite  as  boldly  and  ably 
as  now,  long  before  the  rise  of  modem  science. 
Still,  it  must  be  admitted  that  scientific  discov- 
eries and  principles  have  been  largely  employ- 
ed in  our  tune  to  give  form  and  consistency 
to  ideas  otherwise  very  dim  and  shadowy,  and 
tlius  to  rehabilitate  for  our  benefit  the  philo- 
sophical dreams  of  antiquity  in  a  more  substan- 
tial shape.     In  this  respect  the  natural  sciences 

11 


13 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


— or,  rather,  the  facts  and  laws  with  which  they 
are  conversant — merely  share  the  fate  of  other 
things.  Nothing,  -however  indifferent  in  itself, 
can  come  into  human  hands  without  acquiring 
thereby  an  ethical,  social,  political,  or  even  re- 
ligious, significance.  An  ounce  of  lead  or  a 
dynamite  cartridge  may  be  in  itself  a  thing 
altogether  destitute  of  any  higher  significance 
than  that  depending  on  physical  properties; 
but  let  it  pass  into  the  power  of  man,  and  at 
once  infinite  possibilities  of  good  and  of  evil 
cluster  round  it  according  to  the  use  to  which 
it  may  be  applied.  This  depends  on  essential 
powers  and  attributes  of  man  himself,  of  which 
he  can  no  more  be  deprived  than  matter  can 
be  den!i  Jed  of  its  inherent  properties ;  an,d  if 
the  evils  arising  from  misuse  of  these  powers 
trouble  us,  we  may  at  least  console  ourselves 
with  the  reflection  that  the  possibility  of  such 
evils  shows  man  to  be  a  free  agent,  and  not  an 
automaton. 

All  this  is  eminently  applicable  to  science 
in  its  relation  to  agnostic  speculations.  The 
material  of  the  physical  and  natural  sciences 
consists  of  facts  ascertained  by  the  evidence  of 
our  senses,  and  for  which  we  depend  on  the 
truthfulness  of  those  senses  and  the  stability 


■MM 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


1%. 


of  external  nature.  Science  proceeds,  by  com- 
parison of  these  facts  and  by  inductive  rea- 
soning, to  arrange  them  under  certain  general 
expressions  or  laws.  So  far  all  is  merely  phys- 
ical, and  need  have  i>o  connection  with  our 
origin  or  destiny  or  relation  to  higher  powers. 
But  we  ourselves  are  a  part  of  the  nature 
which  we  study ;  and  we  cannot  study  it  with- 
out more  or  less  thinking  our  own  thoughts 
into  it.  Thus  we  naturally  begin  to  inquire 
as  to  origins  and  first  causes,  and  as  to  the 
source  of  the  energy  and  order  which  we  per- 
ceive ;  and  to  these  questions  the  human  mind 
demands  some  answer,  either  actual  or  specu- 
lativ(3.  But  here  we  enter  into  the  domain  of 
religiv-^us  thought,  or  that  which  relates  to  a 
power  or  powers  beyond  and  above  nature. 
Whatever  forms  our  thoughts  on  such  subjects 
may  take,  these  depend,  not  directly  on  the  facts 
of  science,  but  on  the  reaction  of  our  minds  on 
these  facts.  They  are  truly  anthropomorphic, 
it  has  been  well  said  that  it  is  as  idle  to  inquire 
as  to  the  origin  of  such  religious  ideas  as  to 
inquire  as  to  the  origin  of  hunger  and  thirst 
Given  the  man,  they  must  necessarily  exist 
Now,  whatever  form  these  philosophical  or 
religious  ideas  may  take — whether  that  of  Ag- 


H 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


nosticism  or  Pantheism  or  Theism — science, 
properly  so  called,  has  no  right  to  be  either 
praised  or  blamed.  Its  material  may  be  used, 
but  the  structure  is  the  work  of  the  artificer 
himself. 

It  is  well,  however,  to  carry  with  us  the  truth 
that  this  border-land  between  science  and  re- 
ligion is  one  which  men  cannot  be  prevented 
from  entering ;  but  what  they  may  find  therein 
depends  very  much  on  themselves.  Under  wise 
guidance  it  may  prove  to  us  an  Eden,  the  very 
gate  of  heaven,  and  we  may  acquire  in  it  larger 
and  more  harmonious  views  of  both  the  seen 
and  the  unseen,  of  science  and  of  religion.  But, 
on  the  other  hand,  it  may  be  found  to  be  a  bat- 
tle-field or  a  bedlam,  a  place  of  confused  cries 
and  incoherent  ravings,  and  strewn  with  the 
wrecks  of  human  hopes  and  aspirations. 

There  can  be  no  question  that  the  more  un- 
pleasant aspect  of  the  matter  is  somewhat  prev- 
alent in  our  time,  and  that  we  should,  if  possible, 
understand  the  causes  of  the  conflict  and  tl  e 
confusion  that  prevail,  and  the  way  out  of 
them.  To  do  this  it  will  be  necessary  first  to 
notice  some  of  the  incidental  or  extraneous 
causes  of  difficulty  and  strife,  and  then  to  in- 
quire more  in  detail  as  to  the  actual  bearing 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


n 


of  the  scientific  knowledge  of  nature  on  Ag- 
nosticism. 

One  fruitful  cause  of  difficulty  in  the  rela- 
tions of  science  and  religion  is  to  be  found  in 
the  narrowness  and  incapacity  of  well-meaning 
Christians  who  unnecessarily  bring  the  doc- 
trines of  natural  and  revealed  religion  into 
conflict,  by  misunderstanding  the  one  or  the 
other,  or  by  attaching  obsolete  scientific  ideas 
to  Holy  Scripture,  and  identifying  them  with 
it  in  points  where  it  is  quite  non-committal. 
Much  mischief  is  also  done  by  a  prevalent  habit 
of  speaking  of  all,  or  nearly  all,  the  votaries 
of  science  as  if  they  were  irreligious. 

A  second  cause  is  to  be  found  in  the  extrav- 
agant speculations  indulged  in  by  the  adherents 
of  certain  philosophical  systems.  Such  specu- 
lations often  far  overpass  the  limits  of  actual 
scientific  knowledge,  and  are  yet  paraded  be- 
fore the  ignorant  as  if  they  were  legitimate  re- 
sults of  science,  and  so  become  irretrievably 
confounded  with  it  in  the  popular  mind. 

A  third  influence,  more  closely  connected 
with  science  itself,  arises  from  the  rapidity  of 
the  progress  of  discovery  and  of  the  practical 
applications  of  scientific  facts  and  principles. 
This  has  unsettled  the  minds  of  men,  and  has 


|6 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


given  them  the  idea  that  nothing  is  beyond 
their  reach.  There  is  thus  a  vague  notion  that 
science  has  overcome  so  many  difficulties,  and 
explained  so  many  mysteries,  that  it  may  ulti- 
mately satisfy  all  the  wants  of  man  and  leave 
no  scope  for  religious  belief.  Those  who  know 
the  limitations  of  our  knowledge  of  material 
things  may  not  share  this  delusion;  but  there 
is  reason  to  fear  that  many,  even  of  scientific 
men,  are  carried  away  by  it,  and  it  widely  af- 
fects the  minds  of  general  readers. 

Again,  science  has  in  the  course  of  its  grow^th 
become  divided  into  a  great  number  of  sm^^^ 
specialties,  each  pursued  ardently  by  its  own 
votaries.  This  is  beneficial  in  one  respect ;  for 
much  more  can  be  gained  by  men  digging  down- 
Ward,  each  on  his  own  vein  of  valuable  ore, 
than  by  all  merely  scraping  the  surface.  But 
the  specialist,  as  he  descends  fathom  after  fath- 
om into  his  mine,  however  rich  and  rare  the 
gems  and  metals  he  may  discover,  becomes 
more  and  more  removed  from  the  ordinary 
ways  of  men,  and  more  and  more  regardless 
of  the  products  of  other  veins  as  valuable  as 
his  own.  The  specialist,  however  profound  he 
may  become  in  the  knowledge  of  his  own  lim- 
ited subject,  is  on  that  very  account  less  fitted 


m  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


17 


to  guide  his  fellow-men  in  the  pursuit  of  gen- 
eral truth.  When  he  ventures  to  die  bounda- 
ries between  his  own  and  other  domains  of 
truth,  or  when  he  conceives  the  idea  that  his 
own  little  mine  is  the  sole  deposit  of  all  that 
requires  to  be  known,  he  sometimes  makes 
grave  mistakes;  and  these  pass  current  for  a 
time  as  the  dicta  of  high  scientific  authority. 

Lasdy.  the  lowest  influence  of  all  is  that  which 
sometimes  regulates  what  may  be  termed  the 
commercial  side  of  science.  Here  the  demand 
is  very  apt  to  control  the  supply.  New  facts 
and  legitimate  conclusions  cannot  be  produced 
with  sufficient  rapidity  to  satisfy  the  popular 
craving,  or  they  are  not  sufficiendy  exciting  to 
compete  with  other  attractions.  Science  has 
then  to  enter  the  domain  of  imagination,  and 
the  last  new  generalization — showy  and  spe- 
cious, but  perhaps  baseless  as  the  plot  of  the 
last  new  novel — brings  grist  to  the  mill  of  the 
"  scientist "  and  his  publisher. 

Only  one  permanent  and  final  remedy  is  pos- 
sible for  these  evils,  and  that  is  a  higher  moral 
tone  and  more  thorough  scientific  education  on 
the  part  of  the  general  public.  Until  this  can 
be  secured,  true  science  is  sure  to  be  surrounded 
with  a  mental  haze  of  vague  hypotheses  clothed 


|6 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


in  ill-defined  langriage.  and  which  is  mistaken  by 
the  multitude  for  science  ivi?lf.  Yet  true  science 
should  not  be  held  responsible  for  this,  except 
in  so  far  as  its  material  is  used  to  constitute  the 
substance  of  the  pseudo-gnosis  which  surrounds 
it.  Science  is  in  this  relation  the  honest  house- 
holder whose  goods  may  be  taken  by  thieves 
and  applied  to  bad  uses,  or  the  careful  amasser 
of  wealth  which  may  be  dissipated  by  spend- 
thrifts. 

It  may  be  said  that  if  these  statements  are 
true,  the  ordinary  reader  is  helpless.  How  can 
he  separate  the  true  from  the  false  ?  Must  he 
resign  himself  to  the  condition  of  one  who 
either  believes  on  mere  authority  or  refuses  to 
believe  anything  ?  or  must  he  adopt  the  attitude 
of  the  Pyrrhonist  who  thinks  that  anything  may 
be  either  true  or  false  ?  But  it  is  true,  neverthe- 
less, that  common  sense  may  suffice  to  deliver 
us  from  much  of  the  pseudo-science  of  our 
time,  and  to  enable  us  to  understand  how  lit- 
tle reason  there  is  for  the  conflicts  promoted 
by  mere  speculation  between  science  and  other 
departments  of  legitimate  thought  and  inquiry. 

In  illustrating  this,  we  may  in  the  present 
lecture  consider  that  form  of  sceptical  philos- 
ophy which  in  our  time  is  the  most  prevalent, 


m  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


19 


and  which  has  the  mDst  specious  air  cf  de- 
pendence on  science.  This  is  the  system  of 
Agnosticism  combined  with  evolution  of  which 
Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  is  the  nost  conspicuous 
advocate  in  the  English-speaking  world.  This 
philosophy  deals  with  two  subjects — tiie  cause 
or  origin  of  the  universe  and  of  things  therein, 
and  the  method  of  the  progress  of  all  from  the 
beginning  until  now.  Spencer  sees  nothing  in 
the  first  of  these  but  mere  force  or  energy, 
nothing  in  the  second  but  a  spontaneous  evo- 
lution. All  beyond  these  is  not  only  unknown, 
but  unknowable.  The  theological  and  philo- 
sophical shortcomings  of  this  doctrine  have  been 
laid  bare  by  a  multitude  of  critics,  and  I  do  not 
propose  to  consider  it  in  these  relations  so  much 
as  in  relation  to  science,  which  has  much  to  say 
with  respect  to  both  force  and  evolution. 

An  agnostic  is  literally  one  who  does  not 
know;  and,  were  the  word  used  in  its  true 
and  litisral  sense,  Agnosticism  would  of  neces- 
sity be  opposed  to  science,  since  science  is 
knowledge  and  quite  incompatible  with  the 
want  of  it.  But  the  modern  agnostic  does 
not  pretend  to  be  ignorant  of  the  facts  and 
principles  of  science.  What  he  professes  not 
to  know  is  the  existence  of  any  power  above 


ao 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


and  beyond  material  nahire.  He  goes  a  little 
farther,  however,  than  mere  abs^ace  of  know- 
ledge. He  holds  that  of  God  nothing  can  be 
known ;  or  he  may  put  it  a  little  more  strongly, 
in  the  phrase  of  his  peculiar  philosophy,  by  say- 
ing that  the  existence  of  a  God  or  of  creation 
by  divine  power  is  "  unthinkable."  It  is  in  this 
that  he  differs  from  the  old-fashioned  and  now 
extinct  atheist,  who  bluntly  denied  the  exist- 
ence of  a  God.  The  modern  agnostic  assumes 
an  attitude  of  greater  humility  and  disclaims 
the  actual  denial  of  God.  Yet  he  fJ.*actically 
goes  farther,  in  asserting  the  impossibility  of 
knowing  the  existence  of  a  Divine  Being ;  and 
in  taking  this  farther  step  Agnosticism  does 
more  to  degrade  the  human  reason  and  to  cut 
it  off  from  all  communion  with  anything  beyond 
mere  matter  and  force,  than  does  any  other  form 
of  philosophy,  ancient  or  modern. 

Yet  in  this  Agnosticism  there  is  in  one  point 
an  approximation  to  truth.  If  there  is  a  God, 
he  cannot  be  known  directly  and  fully,  and  his 
plans  and  procedure  must  always  be  more 
or  less  incomprehensible.  The  writer  of  the 
book  of  Job  puts  this  as  plainly  as  any  modern 
agnostic  in  the  passage  beginning  "  Canst  thou 
by  searching  find  out  God  ?" — ^literally,  "  Canst 


iM 


m  MODhfiN  C^IENCE. 


21 


thou  sound  the  depths  of  God?" — and  a  still 
higher  authority  informs  us  that  "  no  mm  hath 
seen  God" — that  is,  known  him  as  we  know 
material  things.  In  short,  absolutely  and  essen- 
tially God  is  incomprehensible ;  but  this  is  no 
new  discovery,  and  the  mistake  of  the  agnostic 
lies  in  failing  to  perceive  that  the  same  diffi- 
culty stands  in  the  way  of  our  perfectiy  know- 
ing anything  whatever.  We  say  that  we  know 
things  when  we  mean  that  we  know  them  in 
their  properties,  relations,  or  effects.  In  this 
sense  the  knowledge  of  God  is  perfecdy  pos- 
sible. It  is  impossible  only  in  that  other  sense 
of  the  word  "know" — if  it  can  have  such  a 
sense — in  which  we  are  required  to  know 
things  in  their  absolute  essence  and  thorough- 
ly. Thus  the  term  "agnostic"  contains  an  in- 
itial fallacy  in  itself;  and  this  philosophy,  like 
many  others,  rests,  in  the  first  instance,  on  a 
mere  jugglery  of  words.  The  real  question  is, 
"Is  there  a  God  who  manifests  himself  to  us 
mediately  and  practically  ?"  and  this  is  a  ques- 
tion which  we  cannot  afford  to  set  aside  by  a 
mere  play  on  the  meanings  of  the  verb  "to 
know." 

If,  however,  any  man  takes  this  position  and 
professes  to  be  incapable  of  knowing  whether 


32 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


or  not  there  is  any  power  above  and  behind 
material  things,  it  will  be  necessary  to  begin 
with  the  very  elements  of  knowledge,  and  to 
inquire  if  there  is  anything  whatever  that  he 
really  knows  and  believes. 

Let  us  ask  him  if  he  can  subscribe  to  the 
simple  creed  expressed  in  the  words  "  I  am,  I 
feel,  I  think."  Should  he  deny  these  proposi- 
tions, then  there  is  no  basis  left  on  which  to 
argue.  Should  he  admit  this  much  of  belief, 
he  has  abandoned  somewhat  of  his  agnostic 
position ;  for  it  would  be  easy  to  show  that  in 
even  uttering  the  pronoun  "I"  he  has  com- 
mitted himself  to  the  belief  in  the  unknowable. 
What  is  the  ego  which  he  admits?  Is  it  the 
material  organism  or  any  one  of  its  organs  or 
parts  ?  or  is  it  something  distinct,  of  which  the 
organism  is  merely  the  garment,  or  outward 
manifestation?  or  is  the  organism  itself  any- 
thing more  than  a  bundle  of  appearances  par- 
tially known  and  scarcely  understood  by  that 
which  calls  itself  " I" ?  Who  knows ?  And  if 
our  own  personality  is  thus  inscrutable,  if  we 
can  conceive  of  it  neither  as  identical  with  the 
whole  or  any  part  of  the  organism  nor  as  ex- 
isting independently  of  the  organism,  we  should 
begin  our  Agnosticism  here,  and  decline  to  utter 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


n 


the  pronoun  "  I "  as  implying  what  we  cannot 
know.  Still,  as  a  matter  of  faith,  we  must  hold 
fast  to  the  proposition  "I  exist"  as  the  only 
standpoint  for  science,  philosophy,  or  common 
life.  If  we  are  asked  for  evidence  of  this  faith, 
we  can  appeal  only  to  our  consciousness  of 
effects  which  imply  the  existence  of  the  ego, 
which  we  thus  have  to  admit  or  suppose  before 
we  can  begin  to  prove  even  its  existence. 

This  fact  of  the  mystery  of  our  own  exist- 
ence is  full  of  material  for  thought.  It  is  in 
itself  startiing — even  appalling.  We  feel  that 
it  is  a  solemn,  a  dreadful,  thing  to  exist,  and  to 
exist  in  that  limitless  space  and  that  eternal  time 
which  we  can  no  more  understand  than  we  can 
our  own  constitution,  though  our  belief  in  their 
existence  is  inevitable.  Nor  can  we  diveet  our- 
selves of  anxious  thoughts  as  to  the  source, 
tendencies,  and  end  of  our  own  being.  Here, 
in  short,  we  already  reach  the  threshold  of  that 
dread  unknown  future  and  its  possibilities,  the 
realization  of  which  by  hope,  fear,  and  imagina- 
tion constitutes,  perhaps,  our  first  introduction 
to  the  unseen  world  as  distinguished  from  the 
present  world  of  sense.  The. agnostic  may 
smile  if  he  pleases  at  religion  as  a  puerile 
fancy,  but  he  knows,  like  other  men,  that  the 


r 


14  FACTS  AND  FANCIES 

mere  consciousness  of  existence  necessarily 
links  itself  with  a  future — nay,  unending — exist- 
ence, and  that  any  being  with  this  conscious- 
ness of  futurity  must  have  at  least  a  religion 
of  hope  and  fear.  In  this  we  find  an  intelli- 
gible reason  for  the  universality  of  religious 
ideas  in  relation  to  a  future  life.  Even  where 
this  leads  to  beliefs  that  may  be  called  super- 
stitious, it  is  more  reasonable  than  Agnosticism ; 
for  it  is  surely  natural  that  a  being  inscrutable 
by  himself  should  be  led  to  believe  in  the  ex- 
istence of  other  things  equally  inscrutable,  but 
apparendy  related  to  himself. 

But  the  thinking  "  I "  dwells  in  the  midst  of 
what  we  term  external  objects.  In  a  certain 
sense  it  treats  the  parts  of  its  own  bodily  or- 
ganism as  if  they  were  things  external  to  it, 
speaking  of  "  my  hand,"  "  my  head,"  as  if  they 
were  its  property.  But  there  are  things  prac- 
tically infinite  beyond  the  organism  itself.  We 
call  them  objects  or  things,  but  they  are  only 
appearances ;  and  we  know  only  their  relations 
to  ourselves  and  to  each  other.  Their  essence, 
if  xhzj  have  any,  is  inscrutable.  We  say  that 
the  appearances  indicate  matter  and  energy, 
but  what  these  are  essentially  we  know  not 
We  reduce  matter  to  atoms,  but  it  is  impossible 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


25 


for  us  to  have  any  conception  of  an  atom  or  of 
the  supposed  ether,  whether  itself  in  some 
sense  atomic  or  not,  including  such  atoms. 
Our  attempts  to  form  rational  conceptions  of 
atoms  resolve  themselves  into  complex  conjec- 
tures as  to  vortices  of  ethers  and  the  like,  of 
which  no  one  pretends  to  have  any  distinct 
mental  picture ;  yet  on  this  basis  of  the  incom- 
prehensible rests  all  our  physical  science,  the 
first  truths  in  which  are  really  matters  of  pure 
faith  in  the  existence  of  that  which  we  cannot 
understand.  Yet  all  men  would  scoff  at  the 
agnostic  who  on  this  account  should  express 
unbelief  in  physical  science. 

Let  us  observe  here,  further,  that  since  the 
mysterious  and  inscrutable  "I"  is  surrounded 
with  an  equally  mysterious  and  inscrutable 
universe,  and  since  the  ego  and  the  external 
world  are  linked  together  by  indissoluble  rela- 
tions, we  are  introduced  to  certain  alternatives 
as  to  origins.  Either  the  universe  or  "nature" 
is  a  mere  phantom  conjured  up  by  the  ego,  or 
the  ego  is  a  product  of  the  universe,  or  both 
are  the  result  of  some  equally  mysterious  pow- 
er beyond  us  and  the  material  world.  Neither 
of  these  suppositions  is  absurd  or  unthinkable ; 
and,  whichever  of  them  we  adopt,  we  are  again 

8 


'    ! 


26 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


introduced  to  what  may  be  termed  a  religion  as 
well  as  a  philosophy.  On  one  view,  man  be- 
comes a  god  to  himself ;  on  another,  nature  be- 
comes his  god ;  on  the  third,  a  Supreme  Being, 
the  Creator  of  both,  All  three  religions  exist 
in  the  world  in  a  vast  variety  of  forms,  and  it 
is  questionable  if  any  human  being  does  not 
more  or  less  give  credence  to  one  or  the  other. 
Scientific  men,  even  when  they  think  proper 
to  call  themselves  idealists,  must  reject  the  first 
of  the  above  alternatives,  since  they  cannot 
doubt  the  objective  existence  of  external  na- 
ture, and  they  know  that  its  existence  dates 
from  a  time  anterior  to  our  possible  existence 
as  human  beings.  They  may  hold  to  either 
of  the  others ;  and,  practically,  the  minds  of  stu- 
dents of  science  are  divided  between  the  idea 
of  a  spontaneous  evolution  of  all  things  from 
self-existent  matter  and  force,  and  that  of  the 
creation  of  all  by  a  self-existent,  omnipotent,  and 
all-wise  Creator.  From  certain  points  of  view, 
it  may  be  of  no  consequence  whether  a  scien- 
tific man  holds  one  or  other  of  these  views. 
Self-existent  force  or  power,  capable  of  spon- 
taneous inception  of  change,  and  of  orderly 
and  infallible  development  according  to  laws 
of  its  own   imposition  or  enactment,  which  is 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


n 


demanded  on  the  one  hypothesis,  scarcely 
differs  from  the  conception  of  an  intelligent 
Creator  demanded  on  the  other,  while  it  is,  to 
say  the  least,  equally  incomprehensible.  It  is, 
besides,  objectionable  to  science,  on  the  ground 
that  it  requires  us  to  assume  properties  in 
matter  and  energy  quite  at  variance  with  the 
results  of  experience.  The  remarkable  alter- 
native presented  by  Tyndall  in  his  Belfast  Ad- 
dress well  expresses  this :  "  Either  let  us  open 
our  doors  freely  to  the  conception  of  creative 
acts,  or,  abandoning  them,  let  us  radically 
change  our  notions  of  matter."  The  expres- 
sion "creative  acts"  here  is  a  loose  and  not 
very  accurate  one  for  the  operation  of  creative 
power.  The  radical  change  in  "  our  notions  of 
matter"  involves  an  entire  reversal  of  all  that 
science  knows  of  its  essential  properties.  This 
being  understood,  the  sentence  is  a  fair  expres- 
sion oi  the  dilemma  in  which  the  agnostic  and 
the  materialist  find  themselves. 

Between  the  two  hypotheses  above  stated 
there  is,  howe'  er,  one  material  and  vital  dif- 
ference, depending  on  the  nature  of  man  him- 
self. The  universe  does  not  consist  merely  of 
insensate  matter  and  force  and  automatic  vital- 
ity ;  there  happens  to  be  in  it  the  rational  and 


28 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


consciously  responsible  being  man.  To  attrib- 
ute to  him  an  origin  from  mere  matter  and 
force  is  not  merely  to  attach  to  them  a  fictitious 
power  and  significance :  it  is  also  to  reject  the 
rational  probability  that  the  original  cause  must 
be  at  least  equal  to  the  effects  produced,  and  to 
deprive  ourselves  of  all  communion  and  sympa- 
thy with  nature.  Further,  wherever  the  "  pres- 
ence and  potency"  of  human  reason  resides, 
there  seems  no  reason  to  prevent  our  search- 
ing for  and  finding  it  in  the  only  way  in  which 
we  can  know  anything,  in  its  properties  *and 
effects.  The  dogma  of  Agnosticism,  it  is  true, 
refuses  to  permit  this  search  after  God,  but  it 
does  so  with  as  little  reason  as  any  of  those 
self-constituted  authorities  that  demand  belief 
without  questioning.  Nay,  it  has  the  offensive 
peculiarity  that  in  the  very  terms  in  which  it 
issues  its  prohibition  it  contradicts  itself.  The 
same  oracle  which  asserts  that  "  the  power 
which  the  universe  manifests  to  us  is  wholly 
inscrutable  "  affirms  also  that  "  we  must  inevita- 
bly commit  ourselves  to  the  hypothesis  of  a 
first  cause."  Thus  we  are  told  that  a  power 
which  is  "manifest"  is  also  "inscrutable,"  and 
that  we  must  "commit  ourselves"  to  a  belief 
in  a  "  first  cause  "  which  on  the  hypothesis  can- 


feilb 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


29 


not  be  known  to  exist.  This  may  be  philosophy 
of  a  certain  sort,  but  it  certainly  should  not 
claim  kinship  with  science. 

Perhaps  it  may  be  well  here  to  place  in  com- 
parison with  each  other  the  doctrine  of  the 
agnostic  philosophy  as  expounded  by  Herbert 
Spencer,  and  that  of  Paul  of  Tarsus — an  older, 
but  certainly  a  not  less  acute,  thinker — and  we 
may  refer  to  their  utterances  respecting  the 
origin  of  the  universe. 

Spencer  says  :  "  The  verbally  intelligent  sup- 
positions respecting  the  origin  of  the  universe 
are  three:  (i)  It  is  self-existent;  (2)  It  is  self- 
created  ;  (3)  It  is  created  by  an  external  agen- 
cy." On  these  it  may  be  remarked  that  the 
second  is  scarcely  even  "verbally  intelligent;" 
it  seems  to  be  a  contradiction  in  terms.  The 
third  admits  of  an  important  modification,  which 
was  manifest  to  Spinosa  if  not  to  Spencer — 
namely,  that  the  Creator  may — nay,  must — be 
not  merely  "  external,"  but  within  the  universe 
as  well.  If  there  is  a  God,  he  must  be  in  the 
universe  as  a  pervading  power,  and  in  every 
part  of  it,  and  must  not  be  shut  out  from  his 
own  work.  This  mistaken  conception  of  God 
as  building  himself  out  of  his  own  universe  and 
acting  on  it  by  external  force  is  both  irrational 


»• 


30 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


and  unscientific,  being,  for  example,  quite  at 
variance  with  the  analogy  of  force  and  life. 
Rightly  understood,  therefore,  Spencer's  alter- 
natives resolve  themselves  into  two — either  the 
universe  is  self-existent,  or  it  is  the  work  of  a 
self-existent  Creator  pervading  all  things  with 
his  power.  Of  these,  Spencer  prefers  the  first. 
Paul,  on  the  other  hand,  referring  to  the  mental 
condition  of  the  civilized  heathens  of  his  time, 
affirms  that  rationally  they  could  believe  only 
in  the  hypothesis  of  creation.  He  says  of 
God :  "  His  invisible  things,  even  his  eternal 
power  and  divinity,  can  be  perceived  (by  the 
reason),  being  understood  by  the  things  that 
are  made."  Let  us  look  at  these  rival  proposi- 
tions. Is  the  universe  self-existent,  or  does  it 
show  evidence  of  creative  power  and  divinity  ? 
The  doctrine  that  the  universe  is  self-existent 
may  be  understood  in  different  ways.  It  may 
mean  either  an  endless  succession  of  such 
changes  as  we  now  see  in  progress,  or  an 
eternity  of  successive  cycles  proceeding  through 
the  course  of  geological  ages  and  ever  return- 
ing into  themselves.  The  first  is  directly  con- 
trary to  known  facts  in  the  geological  history 
of  the  earth,  and  cannot  be  maintained  by  any 
one.     The  second  would  imply  that  the  known 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


31 


geological  history  is  merely  a  part  of  one  great 
cycle  of  an  endless  series,  and  of  which  an  in- 
finite number  have  already  passed  away.  It  is 
evident  that  this  infinite  succession  of  cycles  is 
quite  as  incomprehensible  as  any  other  infinite 
succession  of  things  or  events.  But,  waiving 
this  objection,  we  have  the  alternative  either 
that  all  the  successive  cycles  are  exactly  alike — 
which  could  not  be,  in  accordance  with  evolu- 
tion, nor  with  the  analogy  of  other  natural 
cycles— or  there  must  have  been  a  progression 
in  the  successive  cycles.  But  this  last  supposi- 
tion would  involve  an  uncaused  beginning  some- 
where, and  this  of  such  a  character  as  to  deter- 
mine all  the  successive  cycles  and  their  progress ; 
which  would  again  be  contrary  to  the  hypo- 
thesis of  self-existence.  It  is  useless,  however, 
to  follow  such  questions  farther,  since  it  is  evi- 
dent that  this  nypothesis  accounts  for  nothing 
and  would  involve  us  in  absolute  confusion. 

Let  us  turn  now  to  Paul's  statement.  This 
has  the  merit,  in  the  first  place,  of  expressing  a 
known  fact — namely,  that  men  do  infer  power 
and  divinity  from  nature.  But  is  this  a  mere 
supersti».ion,  or  have  they  reason  for  it?  If 
the  universe  be  considered  as  a  vast  machine 
exceeding  all  our  powers  of  calculation  in  its 


32 


FACTS  AND   FANCIES 


magnitude  and  complexity,  it  seems  in  the  last 
degree  absurd  to  deny  that  it  presents  evidence 
of  "power."     Dr.  Carpenter,  in  a  recent  lecture, 
illustrates  the  position  of  the  agnostic  in  this 
respect  by  supposing  him  to  examine  the  ma- 
chinery of  a  great  mill,  and,  having  found  that 
this  is  all  set  in  motion  by  a  huge  iron  shaft 
proceeding  from  a  brick  wall,  to  suppose  that 
this  shaft  is  self-acting,  and  that  there  is  no 
cause  of  motion  beyond.     But  when  we  con- 
sider the  variety  and  the  intricacy  of  nature, 
the  unity  and  the  harmony  of  its  parts,  and  the 
adaptation  of  these  to  a'.i  incalculable  number 
of  uses,  we  find  something  more  than  power. 
There  is  a  fitting  together  of  things  in  a  man- 
ner not  only  above  our  imitation,  but  above  our 
comprehension.     To  refer  this  to  mere  chance 
or  to  innate  tendencies  or  potencies  of  things 
we  feel  to  be  but  an  empty  form  of  words; 
consequently,  we  are  forced  to  admit  super- 
human  contrivance   in   nature,   or  what   Paul 
terms   "divinity."     Further,  since   the  history 
of  the  universe  goes  back  farther  than  we  can 
calculate,  and  as  we  can  know  nothing  beyond 
the  First  Cause,  we  infer  that  the  Power  and 
Divinity  which  we  have  ascertained  in  nature 
must  be  "eternal."     Again,  since  the  creative 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


13 


aul 
ory 
can 
rond 
and 
ture 
itive 


power  tnust  at  some  point  in  past  time  have 
spontaneously  begun  to  act,  we  regard  it  as  a 
"living"  power,  which  is  the  term  elsewhere 
used  by  Paul  in  expressing  the  idea  of  "per- 
sonality" as  held  by  theologians.  Lastly,  if 
everything  that  we  know  thus  testifies  to  an 
eternal  power  and  divinity,  to  maintain  that 
we  can  know  nothing  of  this  First  Cause  must 
be  simply  nonsense,  unless  we  are  content  to 
fall  back  on  absolute  nihilism,  and  hold  that 
we  know  nothing  whatever,  either  relatively  or 
absolutely ;  but  in  this  case  not  on  j  is  science 
dethroned,  but  reason  herself  is  driven  from 
her  seat,  and  there  is  nothing  left  for  us  to  dis- 
cuss. Paul's  idea  is  thus  perfectly  clear  and 
consistent,  and  it  is  not  difficult  to  see  that 
common  sense  must  accept  this  doctrine  of  an 
Eternal  Living  Power  and  Divinity  in  prefer- 
ence to  the  hypothesis  of  Spencer. 

So  far  we  have  considered  the  general  bear- 
ing of  agnostic  and  theistic  theories  on  our 
relations  to  nature ;  but  if  we  are  to  test  these 
theories,  fully  by  scientific  considerations,  we 
must  look  a  little  more  into  details.  The  exist- 
ences experimentally  or  inductively  known  to 
science  may  be  grouped  under  three  heads — 
matter,  energy,  and   law;   and   each  of  these 


r 


34 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


j 

has  an  independent  testimony  to  give  with  ref- 
erence to  its  origin  and  its  connection  with  a 
higher  creative  power. 

Matter,  it  is  true,  occupies  a  somewhat  equiv- 
ocal place  in  the  agnostic  philosophy.  Accord- 
ing to  Spencer,  it  is  "  built  up  or  extracted  from 
experiences  of  force,"  and  it  is  only  by  force 
that  it  "  demonstrates  itself  to  us  as  existing.'' 
This  is  true;  but  that  which  "demonstrates 
itself  to  us  as  existing  "  must  exist,  in  whatever 
way  the  demonstration  is  made,  and  Spencer 
does  not,  in  consequence  of  the  lack  of  direct 
evidence,  extend  his  Agnosticism  to  matter, 
though  he  mis^ht  quite  consistently  do  so.  In 
any  case,  science  postulates  the  existence  of 
matter.  Further,  science  is  obliged  to  conceive 
of  matter  as  composed  of  atoms,  and  of  atoms 
of  different  kinds ;  for  atoms  differ  in  weight 
and  in  chemical  properties,  and  these  differ- 
ences are  to  us  ultimate,  for  they  cannot  be 
changed.  Thus  science  and  practical  life  are 
tied  down  to  certain  predetermined  properties 
of  matter.  We  may,  it  is  true,  in  future  be 
able  to  reduce  the  number  of  kinds  of  matter, 
by  finding  that  some  bodies  believed  to  be  sim- 
ple are  really  compound;  but  this  does  not 
affect  the  question  in  hand.     As  to  the  origin 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


35 


of  the  diverse  properties  of  atoms,  only  two 
suppositions  seem  possible :  either  in  some  past 
period  they  agreed  to  differ  and  to  divide  them- 
selves into  different  kinds  suitable  in  quantity 
and  properties  to  make  up  the  universe,  or 
else  mattQ.r  in  its  various  kinds  has  been  skil- 
fully manufactured  by  a  creative  power. 

But  there  is  a  scientific  way  in  which  matter 
may  be  resolved  into  force.  An  iron  knife 
passed  through  a  powerful  magnetic  current  is 
felt  to  be  resisted,  as  if  passing  through  a  solid 
substance,  and  this  resistance  is  produced  mere- 
ly by  magnetic  attraction.  Why  may  it  not  be 
so  with  resistance  in  general  ?  To  give  effect 
to  such  a  supposition,  and  to  reconcile  it  with 
the  facts  of  chemistry  and  of  physics,  it  is  ne- 
cessary to  suppose  that  the  atoms  of  matter  are 
merely  minute  vortices  or  whirlwinds  set  up  in 
an  ethereal  medium,  which  in  itself,  and  when 
at  rest,  does  not  possess  any  of  the  properties 
of  matter.  That  such  an  ethereal  medium  exists 
we  have  reason  to  believe  from  the  propagation 
of  light  and  heat  through  space,  though  we 
know  little,  except  negatively,  of  its  properties. 
Admitting,  however,  its  existence,  the  seidng  up 
in  it  of  the  various  kinds  of  vortices  constitut- 
ing the  atoms  of  different  kinds  of  matter  is 


3fi 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


just  as  much  in  need  of  a  creative  power  to 
initiate  it  as  the  creation  of  matter  out  of  noth- 
ing would  be.  Besides  this,  we  now  have  to 
account  for  the  existence  of  the  ether  itself; 
and  here  we  have  the  disadvantage  that  this 
substance  possesses  none  of  the  properties  of 
ordinary  matter  except  mere  extension ;  that, 
in  so  far  as  we  know,  it  is  continuous,  and  not 
molecular;  and  that,  while  of  the  most  incon- 
ceivable tenuity,  it  transmits  vibrations  in  a  man- 
ner similar  to  that  of  a  body  of  the  extremest 
solidity.  It  would  seem,  also,  to  be  indefinite  in 
extent  and  beyond  the  control  of  the  ordinary 
natural  forces.  In  short,  ether  is  as  incompre- 
hensible as  Deity ;  and  if  we  suppose  it  to  have 
'nstituted  spontaneously  the  different  kinds  of 
matter,  we  have  really  constituted  it  a  god,  which 
is  what,  in  a  loose  way,  some  ancient  mytholo- 
gies actually  did.  We  may,  however,  truly  say 
that  this  modern  scientific  conception  of  the 
practically  infinite  and  all-pervading  ether,  the 
primary  seat  of  force,  brings  us  nearer  than 
ever  before  to  some  realization  of  the  Spirit- 
ual Creator. 

But  to  ether  both  science  and  Agnosticism 
must  superadd  energy — the  entirely  immaterial 
something  which  moves  ether  itself.    The  rather 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


37 


crude  scientific  notion  that  certain  forces  are 
"  modes  of  motion  "  perhaps  blinds  us  some- 
what to  the  mystery  of  energy.  Even  if  we 
knew  no  other  form  of  force  than  heat,  which 
moves  masses  of  mat  t  or  atoms,  it  would  be 
in  many  respects  an  inscrutable  thing.  But 
as  traversing  the  subtle  ether  in  such  forms  as 
radiant  heat,  light,  chemical  force,  and  electricity, 
energy  becomes  still  more  mysterious.  Perhaps 
it  is  even  more  so  in  what  seems  to  be  one  of 
its  primitive  forms — that  of  gravitation,  where 
it  connects  distant  bodies  apparently  without 
any  intervening  medium.  Facts  of  this  kind 
appear  to  bring  us  still  nearer  to  the  concep- 
tion of  an  all-pervading  immaterial  creative 
power. 

But  perhaps  what  may  be  termed  the  deter- 
minations of  force  exhibit  this  still  more  clearly, 
as  a  very  familiar  instance  may  show.  Our 
sun — one  of  a  countless  number  of  similar 
suns — is  to  us  the  great  centre  of  light  and 
heat,  sustaining  all  processes,  whether  merely 
physical  or  vital,  on  our  planet.  It  was  a  grand 
conception  of  certain  old  religions  to  make  the 
sun  the  emblem  of  God,  though  sun-worship 
was  a  substitution  of  the  creature  for  the  Cre- 
ator, and  would  have  been  dispelled  by  modern 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


discovery.  But  our  sun  is  not  merely  one 
of  countless  suns,  some  of  them  of  greater 
magnitude,  but  it  is  only  a  temporary  de- 
pository of  a  limited  quantity  of  energy,  ever 
dissipating  itself  into  space,  calculable  as  to  its 
amount  and  duration,  and  known  to  depend  for 
its  existence  on  gravitative  force.  We  may 
imagine  the  beginning  of  such  a  luminary  in 
the  collision  of  great  masses  of  matter  rushing 
together  under  the  influence  of  gravitation,  and 
causing  by  their  impact  a  conflagration  capable 
of  enduring  for  millions  of  years.  Yet  our  im- 
agining such  a  rude  process  for  the  kindling 
of  the  sun  will  go  a  very  little  way  in  account- 
ing for  all  the  mechanism  of  the  solar  system 
and  things  therein.  Further,  it  raises  new 
questions  as  to  the  original  condition  of  mat- 
ter. If  it  was  originally  in  one  mass,  whence 
came  the  incalculable  power  by  which  it  was 
rent  into  innumerable  suns  and  systems?  If 
it  was  once  universally  diffused  in  boundless 
space,  when  and  how  was  the  force  of  gravity 
turned  on,  and  what  determined  its  action  in 
such  a  way  as  to  construct  the  existing  uni- 
verse? This  is  only  one  of  the  simplest  and 
baldest  possible  views  of  the  intricate  deter- 
minations of  force  displayed  in  the  universe, 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


S9 


yet  it  may  suffice  to  indicate  the  necessity  of  a 
living  and  determining  First  Cause. 

The  fact  that  all  the  manifestations  of  force 
are  regulated  by  law  by  no  means  favors  the 
agnostic  view.  The  laws  of  nature  are  merely 
mental  generalizations  of  our  own,  and,  so  far 
as  they  go,  show  a  remarkable  harmony  be- 
tween our  mental  nature  and  that  manifested 
in  the  universe.  They  are  not  themselves  pow- 
ers capable  of  producing  effects,  but  merely 
express  what  we  can  ascertain  of  uniformity 
of  action  in  nature.  The  law  of  gravitation, 
for  example,  gives  no  clew  to  the  origin  of  that 
force,  but  merely  expresses  its  constant  mode 
of  action,  in  whatever  way  that  may  have  been 
determined  at  first.  Nor  are  natural  laws  de- 
crees of  necessity.  They  might  have  been 
otherwise — nay,  many  of  them  may  be  other- 
wise in  parts  of  the  universe  inaccessible  to  us, 
or  they  may  change  in  process  of  time ;  for  the 
period  over  which  our  knowledge  extends  may 
be  to  the  plans  of  the  Creator  like  the  lifetime 
of  some  minute  insect  which  might  imagine 
human  arrangements  of  no  great  permanence 
to  be  of  eternal  duration. 

Unless  the  laws  of  nature  were  constant,  in 
so  far  as  our  experience  extends,  we  could  have 


40 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


no  certain  basis  either  for  science  or  for  practi- 
cal life.  All  would  be  capricious  and  uncertain, 
and  we  could  calculate  on  nothing.  Law  thus 
adapts  the  universe  to  be  the  residence  of  ra- 
tional beings,  and  nothing  else  could.  Viewed 
in  this  way,  we  see  that  natural  laws  must  be,  in 
their  relation  to  a  Creator,  voluntary  limitations 
of  his  power  in  certain  directions  for  the  bene- 
fit of  his  creatures.  To  secure  this  end,  nature 
must  be  a  perfect  machine,  all  the  parts  of  which 
are  adjusted  for  permanent  and  harmonious 
action.  It  may  perhaps  rather  be  compared 
to  a  vast  series  of  machines,  each  running  in- 
dependently like  the  trains  on  a  railway,  but  all 
connected  and  regulated  by  an  invisible  guid- 
ance which  determines  the  time  and  the  dis- 
tance of  each,  and  the  manner  in  which  the  less 
urgent  and  less  intportant  shall  give  place  to 
others.  Even  this  does  not  express  the  whole 
truth ;  for  the  harmony  of  nature  must  be  con- 
nected with  constant  change  and  progress  to- 
ward higher  perfection.  Does  this  conception 
of  natural  law  give  us  any  warrant  for  the  idea 
that  the  universe  is  a  product  of  chance?  Is 
it  not  the  highest  realization  of  all  that  we  cp.n 
conceive  of  the  plans  of  superhuman  intelli- 
gence? 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


41 


The  stLpid  notion — still  lingering  in  certain 
quarters — that  when  anything  has  been  referred 
to  a  natural  law  or  to  a  secondary  cause  under 
law,  God  may  be  dispensed  with  in  relation  to 
that  thing,  is  merely  a  survival  of  the  supersti- 
tion that  divine  action  must  be  of  the  nature 
of  a  capricious  interference.  The  true  theistic 
conception  of  law  is  that  already  stated,  of  a 
voluntary  limitation  of  divine  power  in  the  in- 
terest of  a  material  cosmos  and  its  intelligent 
inhabitants.  Nor  is  the  permanence  of  law 
dependent  on  necessity  or  on  mere  mechanical 
routine,  but  on  the  unchanging  will  of  the  Leg- 
islator ;  while  the  countless  varieties  and  vicis- 
situdes of  nature  depend,  not  on  caprice  or  on 
accidental  interference,  but  on  the  interactions 
and  adjustments  of  laws  of  different  grades,  and 
so  numerous  and  varied  in  their  scope  and  ap- 
plication and  in  the  combinations  of  wljich  they 
are  capable  that  it  is  often  impossible  for  finite 
minds  to  calculate  their  results. 

If,  now,  in  conclusion,  we  are  asked  to  sum 
up  the  hypotheses  as  to  the  origin  of  natural 
laws  and  of  the  properties  and  determinations 
of  matter  and  force,  we  may  do  this  under  the 
following  heads : 

I.  Absolute  creation  by  the  will  of  a  Supreme 

4» 


42 


FACTS  AND   FANCIES 


Intelligence,  self-existent  and  omnipotent.  This 
may  be  the  ultimate  fact  lying  behind  all  mate- 
rials, forces,  and  laws  known  to  science. 

2.  Mediate  creation,  or  the  making  of  new 
complex  products  with  material  already  created 
and  under  laws  previously  existing.  This  is 
applicable  not  so  much  to  the  primary  origin 
of  things  as  to  their  subsequent  determinations 
and  modifications. 

3.  Both  of  the  above  may  be  included  under 
the  expression  "creation  by  law,"  implying  the 
institution  from  the  first  of  fixed  laws  or  modes 
of  action  not  to  be  subsequently  deviated  from. 

4.  Theistic  evolution,  or  the  gradual  devel- 
opment of  the  divine  plans  by  the  apparently 
spontaneous  interaction  of  things  made.  This 
is  universally  admitted  to  occur  in  the  minor 
modifications  of  created  things,  thougji  of  course 
it  can  have  no  place  as  a  mode  of  explaining 
actual  origins,  and  it  must  be  limited  within 
the  laws  of  nature  established  by  the  Creator. 
Practically,  it  might  be  dijfiftcult  to  make  any 
sharp  distinctions  between  such  evolution  and 
mediate  creation. 

5.  Agnostic  and  monistic  evolution,  which 
hold  the  spontaneous  origination  and  differen- 
tiation of  things  out  of  primitive  matter  and 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


43 


force,  self-existent  or  fortuitous.  The  monistic 
form  of  this  hypothesis  assumes  one  primary 
substance  or  existence  potentially  embracing 
all  subsequent  developments. 

These  theories  are,  of  course,  not  all  antag- 
onistic to  one  another.  They  resolve  them- 
selves into  two  groups,  a  theistic  and  an  athe- 
istic. The  former  includes  the  first  four ;  the 
latter,  the  fifth.  Any  one  who  believes  in  God 
may  suppose  a  primary  creation  of  matter  and 
energy,  a  subsequent  moulding  and  fashioning 
of  them  mediately  and  under  natural  law,  and 
also  a  gradual  evolution  of  many  new  things 
by  the  interaction  of  things  previously  made 
This  complex  idea  of  the  origin  of  things  seemS; 
indeed,  to  be  the  rational  outcome  of  Theism.  It 
is  also  the  idea  which  underlies  the  old  record 
in  the  book  of  Genesis,  where  we  have  first  an 
absolute  creation,  and  then  a  series  of  "  mak- 
ings "  and  "  placings,"  and  of  things  "  bringing 

►rth "  other  things,  in  the  course  of  the  crea- 
tive periods. 

On  the  other  hand,  Agnosticism  postulates 
primary  force  or  forces  self-existent  and  includ- 
ing potentially  all  that  is  subsequently  evolved 
from  them.  The  only  way  in  which  it  approxi- 
mates to  theism  is  in  its  extreme  monistic  form, 


44 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


where  the  one  force  or  power  supposed  to  un- 
derlie all  existence  is  a  sort  of  God  shorn  of 
personality,  will,  and  reason.     * 

The  actual  relations  of  these  opposing  theo- 
ries to  science  cannot  be  better  explained  than 
by  a  reference  to  the  words  of  a  leading  mon- 
ist,  whose  views  we  shall  have  to  notice  in  the 
next  lecture.  "  If,"  says  Haeckel,  "  anybody  feels 
the  necessity  of  representing  the  origin  of  mat- 
ter as  the  work  of  a  supernatural  creative  force 
independent  of  matter  itself,  I  would  remind 
him  that  the  idea  of  an  immaterial  force  creat- 
ing matter  in  the  first  instance  is  an  article  of 
faith  which  has  nothing  to  do  with  science. 
Where  faith  begins,  science  ends." 

Precisely  so,  if  only  we  invert  the  last  sen- 
tence and  say,  "  Where  science  ends,  faith  be- 
gins." It  is  only  by  faith  that  we  know  of  any 
force,  or  even  of  the  atoms  of  matter  them- 
selves, and  in  like  manner  it  is  "  by  faith  we 
know  that  the  creative  ages  have  been  consti- 
tuted by  the  word  of  God."*  The  only  differ- 
ence is  that  the  monist  has  faith  in  the  potency 
of  nothing  to  produce  something,  or  of  some- 
thing material  to  exist  for  ever  and  to  acquire 
at  some  point  of  time  the  power  spontaneously 

*  Epistle  to  Hebrews,  xi.  3. 


Nil 


2N  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


45 


to  enter  on  the  process  of  development ;  while 
the  theist  has  faith  in  a  primary  intelligent  Will 
as  the  Author  of  all  things.  The  latter  has  this 
to  confirm  his  faith — that  it  accords  with  what 
we  know  of  the  inertia  of  matter,  of  the  con- 
stancy of  forces,  and  of  the  permanence  of 
natural  law,  and  is  in  harmony  with  the  powers 
of  the  one  free  energy  we  know — that  of  the 
human  will. 


ItL 


II. 


THE    SCIENCE 


OP 


Life  and  Monistic  Evolution. 


LECTURE    II. 


THE  SCIENCE  OF  LIFE  AND  MONISTIC   EVOLUTION. 


IN  the  last  lecture  we  have  noticed  the  gen- 
eral relations  of  agnostic  speculations  with 
natural  science,  and  have  exposed  their  failure 
to  account  for  natural  facts  and  laws.  We 
may  now  inquire  into  their  mode  of  dealing 
with  the  phenomena  of  life,  with  regard  to  the 
supposed  spontaneous  evolution  of  which,  and 
its  development  up  to  man  himself,  so  many 
confident  geheralizations  have  been  put  forth 
by  the  agnostic  and  nionistic  philosophy. 

In  the  earlier  history  of  modern  natural  sci- 
ence, the  tendency  was  to  take  nature  as  we 
find  it,  without  speculation  as  to  the  origin  of 
living  things,  which  men  were  content  to  regard 
as  direct  products  of  creative  power.  But  at 
a  very  early  period — and  especially  after  the 
revelations  of  geology  had  disclosed  a  suc- 
cession of  ascending  dynasties  of  life — such 
speculations,  which,  independently  of  science, 
had  commended  themselves  to  the  poetical  and 


49 


50 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


philosophical  minds  of  antiquity,  were  revived. 
In  France  more  particularly,  the  theories  of  Buf- 
fon,  Lamarck,  and  Geoffroy  St.  Hilaire  opened 
up  these  exciting  themes,  and  they  might  even 
then  have  attained  to  the  importance  they  have 
since  acquired  but  for  the  great  and  judicial 
intellect  of  Cuvier,  which  perceived  their  futil- 
ity and  guided  the  researches  of  naturalists 
into  other  and  more  profitable  fields.  The 
next  stimulus  to  such  hypotheses  was  given 
by  the  progress  of  physiology,  and  especially 
by  researches  into  the  embryonic  development 
of  animals  and  plants.  Here  it  was  seen  that 
there  are  homologies  and  likenesses  of  plan 
linking  organisms  with  each  other,  and  that  in 
the  course  of  their  development  the  more  com- 
plex creatures  pass  through  stages  correspond- 
ing to  the  adult  condition  of  lower  forms.  The 
questions  raised  by  the  geographical  distribu- 
tion of  animals,  as  ascertained  by  the  numerous 
expeditions  and  scientific  travellers  of  modern 
times,  tended  in  the  same  direction.  The  way 
was  thus  prepared  for  the  broad  generalizations 
of  Darwin,  who,  seizing  on  the  idea  of  artificial 
selection  as  practised  by  breeders  of  animals 
and  plants,  and  imagining  that  something  sim- 
ilar takes   place   in   the   natural   struggle   for 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


51 


existence,  saw  in  this  a  plausible  solution  for 
the  question  of  the  progress  and  the  variety 
of  organized  beings. 

The  original  Darwinian  theory  was  soon 
found  to  be  altogether  insufficient  to  account 
for  the  observed  facts,  because  of  the  tendency 
of  the  bare  struggle  for  existence  to  produce  deg- 
radation rather  than  elevation ;  because  of  the 
testimony  of  geology  to  the  fact  that  introduction 
of  new  species  takes  place  in  times  of  expan- 
sion rather  than  of  struggle ;  because  of  the 
manifest  tendency  of  the  breeds  produced  by 
artificial  selection  to  become  infertile  and  die 
out  in  proportion  to  their  deviation  from  the 
original  types ;  and  because  of  the  difficulty 
of  preventing  such  breeds  from  reverting  to 
the  original  forms,  which  seem  in  all  cases  to 
be  perfectly  equilibrated  in  their  own  parts  and 
adapted  to  external  nature,  so  that  varieties 
tend,"  as  if  by  gravitative  law,  to  fall  back 
into  the  original  moulds.  A  great  variety  of 
other  considerations — as  those  of  sexual  selec- 
tion, reproductive  ^acceleration  and  retardation, 
periods  of  more  and  less  rapid  evolution,  innate 
tendency  to  vary  at  particular  times  and  in  par- 
ticular circumstances — have  been  imported  into 
the  original  doctrine.     Thus  the  original  Dar- 


52 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


winism  is  a  thing  of  the  past,  even  in  the  mind 
of  its  great  author,  though  it  has  proved  the 
fruitful  parent  of  a  manifold  progeny  of  allied 
ideas  which  continue  to  bear  its  name.  In  this 
respect  Darwinism  is  itself  amenable  to  the 
law  of  evolution,  and  has  been  continually 
changing  its  form  under  the  influence  of  the  con- 
troversial struggles  which  have  risen  around  it. 

Darwinism  was  not  necessarily  atheistic  or 
agnostic.  Its  author  was  content  to  assume  a 
few  living  beings  or  independent  forms  to  begin 
with,  and  did  not  propose  to  obtain  them  by  any 
spontaneous  action  of  dead  matter,  nor  to  ac- 
count for  the  primary  origin  of  life,  still  less  of 
all  material  things.  In  this  he  was  sufficiently 
humble  and  honest;  but  the  logical  weakness 
of  his  position  was  at  once  apparent.  If  crea- 
tion was  needed  to  give  a  few  initial  types,  it 
might  have  produced  others  also.  The  followers 
of  Darwin,  therefore,  more  especially  in  Ger- 
many, at  once  pushed  the  doctrine  back  into 
Agnosticism  and  Monism,  giving  to  it  a  greater 
logical  consistency,  bu^  bringing  it  into  violent 
conflict  with  theism  and  with  common  sense. 

Darwin  himself  early  perceived  that  his  doc- 
trine, if  true,  must  apply  to  man — in  so  far,  at 
least,  as  his  bodily  frame  is  concerned.     Man  is 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


53 


in  this  an  animal,  and  closely  related  to  other 
animals.  To  have  claimed  for  him  a  distinct 
origin  would  have  altogether  discredited  the 
theory,  though  it  might  be  admitted  that,  man 
having  appeared,  his  free  volition  and  his  moral 
and  social  instincts  would  at  once  profoundly 
modify  the  course  of  the  evolution.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  gulf  which  separates  the  reason 
and  the  conscience  of  man  from  instinct  and 
the  animal  intelligence  of  lower  creatures  op- 
posed an  almost  impassable  barrier  to  the  union 
of  man  with  lower  animals ;  and  the  attempt  to 
bridge  this  gulf  threatened  to  bring  the  theory 
into  a  deadly  struggle  with  the  moral,  social, 
and  religious  instincts  of  mankind.  In  face  of 
this  difficulty,  Darwin  and  most  of  his  followers 
adopted  the  more  daring  course  of  maintaining 
the  evolution  of  the  whole  man  from  lower 
forms,  and  thereby  entered  into  a  warfare, 
which  still  rages,  with  psychology,  ethics,  phi- 
lology, and  theology. 

It  is  easy  for  shallow  evolutionists  unaware 
of  the  tendencies  of  their  doctrine,  or  for  lat- 
itudinarian  churchmen  careless  as  to  the  main- 
tenance of  truth  if  only  outward  forms  are  pre- 
served and  comprehension  secured,  to  overlook 
or  make  light  of  these  antagonisms,  but  science 

6* 


54 


FACTS  AND   FANCIES 


and  common  sense  alike  demand  a  severe  ad- 
herence to  truth.  Ji:  becomes,  therefore,  very 
important  to  ascercain  to  what  extent  we  are 
justified  in  adopting  the  agnostic  evolution  in 
its  relation  to  life  and  man  on  scientific  grounds. 
Perhaps  this  may  best  be  done  by  reviewing  the 
argument  of  Haeckel  in  his  work  on  the  evolu- 
tion of  man — one  of  the  ablest,  and  at  the  same 
time  most  thorough,  expositions  of  monistic  ev- 
olution as  applied  to  lower  animals  and  to  men. 
Ernst  Haeckel  is  an  eminent  comparative 
anatomist  and  physiologist,  who  has  earned  a 
wide  and  deserved  reputation  by  his  able  and 
laborious  studies  of  the  calcareous  sponges,  the 
radiolarians,  and  other  low  forms  of  life.  In 
his  work  on  The  Evolution  of  Man  he  applies 
this  knowledge  to  the  solution  of  the  problem 
of  the  origin  of  humanity,  and  sets  himself  not 
only  to  illustrate,  but  to  "prove,"  the  descent 
of  our  species  from  the  simplest  animal  types, 
and  even  to  overwhelm  with  scorn  every  other 
explanation  of  the  appearance  of  man  except 
that  of  spontaneous  evolution.  He  is  not 
merely  an  evolutionist,  but  what  he  terms  a 
"monist,"  and  the  monisH'^  philosophy,  as  de- 
fined by  him,  includes  certain  negations  and 
certain  positive  principles  of  a  most  compre- 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


55 


hensive  and  important  character.  It  implies 
the  denial  of  all  spiritual  or  immaterial  exist- 
ence. Man  is  to  the  monist  merely  a  physio- 
logical machine,  and  nature  is  only  a  greater 
self-existing  and  spontan'^ously-moving  aggre- 
gate of  forces.  Monism  can  thus  altogether 
dispense  with  a  Creative  Will  as  originating 
nature,  and  adopts  the  other  alternative  of  self- 
existence  or  causelessness  for  the  universe  and 
all  its  phenomena.  Again,  the  monistic  doctrine 
necessarily  implies  that  man,  the  animal,  the 
plant,  and  the  mineral  aie  only  successive  stages 
of  the  evolution  of  the  same  primordial  matter, 
constituting  thus  a  connected  chain  of  being,  all 
the  parts  of  which  sprang  spontaneously  from 
each  other.  Lastly,  as  the  admixture  of  prim- 
itive matter  and  force  would  itself  be  a  sort  of 
dualism,  Haeckel  regards  these  as  ultimately 
one,  and  apparently  resolves  the  origin  of  the 
universe  into  the  operation  of  a  self-existing 
energy  having  in  itself  the  potency  of  all  things. 
After  all,  this  may  be  said  to  be  an  approxima- 
tion to  the  idea  of  a  Creator,  but  not  a  living  and 
willing  Creator.  Monism  is  thus  not  identical 
with  pantheism,  but  is  rather  a  sort  of  atheistic 
monotheism,  if  such  a  thing  is  imaginable ;  and 
vindicates  the  assertion  attributed  to  a  late  la- 


56 


FACTS  AND   FaNQIES 


merited  physical  philosopher — that  he  had  found 
no  atheistic  philosophy  which  had  not  a  God 
somewhere. 

Haeckel's  own  statement  of  this  aspect  of 
his  philosophy  is  somewhat  interesting.  He 
says  :  "  Thf*  opponents  of  the  doctrine  of  evo- 
lution are  very  fond  of  branding  the  monistic 
philosophy  grounded  upon  it  as  *  materialism ' 
by  com^diYmg  philosophical  materialism  with  the 
wholly  different  and  censurable  moral  material- 
ism. Strictly,  however,  our  '  monism  '  might  as 
accurately  or  as  inaccurately  be  called  spiritual- 
ism as  materialism.  The  real  materialistic  phi- 
losophy asserts  that  the  phenomena  of  vital 
motion,  like  all  other  phenomena  of  motion, 
are  effects  or  products  of  matter.  The  other 
opposite  extreme,  spiritualistic  philosophy, 
asserts,  on  the  contrary,  that  matter  is  the 
product  of  motive  force,  and  that  all  material 
forms  are  produced  by  free  forces  entirely  inde- 
pendent of  the  matter  itself.  Thus,  according 
to  the  materialistic  conception  of  the  universe, 
matter  precedes  motion  or  active  force ;  accord- 
ing to  the  spiritualistic  conception  of  the  uni- 
verse, on  the  contrary,  active  force  or  motion 
precedes  matter.  Both  views  are  dualistic,  and 
we  hold  them  both  to  be  equally  false.     A  con- 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


S7 


trast  to  both  is  presented  in  the  monistic  philos- 
ophy, which  can  as  little  believe  in  force  without 
matter  as  in  matter  without  force." 

It  is  evident  that  if  Haeckel  limits  himself 
and  his  opponents  to  matter  and  force  as  the 
sole  possible  explanations  of  the  universe,  he 
may  truly  say  that  matter  is  inconceivable  with- 
out force  and  force  inconceivable  without  mat- 
ter. But  the  question  arises.  What  is  the 
monistic  power  beyond  these — the  "  power  be- 
hind nature"  ?  and  as  to  the  true  nature  of  this 
the  Jena  philosopher  gives  us  only  vague  gen- 
eralities, though  it  is  quite  plain  that  he  cannot 
admit  a  Spiritual  Creator.  Further,  as  to  the 
absence  of  any  spiritual  element  from  the 
nature  of  man,  he  does  not  leave  us  in  doubt 
as  to  what  he  means ;  for  immediately  after  the 
above  paragraph  he  informs  us  that  "  the  *  spirit ' 
and  the  *  mind '  of  man  are  but  forces  which 
are  inseparably  connected  with  the  material 
substance  of  our  bodies.  Just  as  the  motive- 
power  of  our  flesh  is  involved  in  the  muscular 
form-element,  so  is  the  thinking  force  of  our 
spirit  involved  in  the  form-element  of  the 
brain."  In  a  note  appended  to  the  passage, 
he  says  that  monism  "  conceives  nature  as 
one  whole,  and   nowhere   recognizes   any  but 


58 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


mechanical  causes."  These  assumptions  as 
to  man  and  nature  pervade  the  whole  book, 
and  of  course  greatly  simplify  the  task  of  the 
writer,  as  he  does  not  require  to  account  for  the 
primary  origin  of  nature,  or  for  anything  in  man 
except  his  physical  frame ;  and  even  this  he  can 
regard  as  a  thing  altogether  mechanical. 

It  is  plain  that  we  might  here  enter  our 
dissent  from  Haeckel's  method,  for  he  requires 
us,  before  we  can  proceed  a  smgle  step  in  the 
evolution  of  man,  to  assume  many  things 
which  he  cannot  prove.  What  evidence  is 
there,  for  example,  of  the  possibility  of  the 
development  of  the  rational  and  moral  nature 
of  man  from  the  intelligence  and  the  instinct 
of  the  lower  animals,  or  of  the  necessary 
dependence  of  the  phenomena  of  mind  on 
the  structure  of  brain-cells?  The  evidence, 
so  far  as  it  goes,  seems  to  tend  the  other  way. 
What  proof  is  there  of  the  spontaneous  evolu- 
tion of  livmg  forms  from  inorganic  matter? 
Experiment  so  far  negatives  the  possibility 
of  this.  Even  if  we  give  Haeckel,  to  begin 
with,  a  single  living  cell  or  granule  of  pro- 
toplasm, we  know  that  this  protoplasm  must 
have  been  produced  by  the  agency  of  a  liv- 
ing vegetable  cell  previously  existing ;  and  we 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


59 


have  no  proof  that  it  can  be  produced  in 
any  other  way.  Again,  what  particle  of  evi- 
dence have  we  that  the  atoms  or  the  energy  of 
an  incandescent  fire-mist  have  in  them  any- 
thing of  the  power  or  potency  of  Hfe  ?  We 
must  grant  the  monist  all  these  postulates  as 
pure  matters  of  faith,  before  he  can  begin  his 
demonstration ;  and,  as  none  of  them  are 
axiomatic  truths,  it  is  evident  that  so  far  he  is 
simply  a  believer  in  the  dogmas  of  a  philo- 
sophic creed,  and  in  this  respect  weak  as  other 
men  whom  he  affects  to  despise. 

We  may  here  place  over  against  his  authority 
that  of  another  eminent  physiologist,  of  more 
philosophic  mind.  Dr.  Carpenter,  who  has  re- 
cently said :  "As  a  physiologist  I  must  fully  rec- 
ognize the  fact  that  the  physical  force  exerted 
by  the  body  of  man  is  not  generated  de  novo  by 
his  will,  but  is  derived  directly  from  the  oxida- 
tion of  the  constituents  of  his  food.  But,  hold- 
ing it  as  equally  certain — because  the  fact  is 
capable  of  verification  by  every  one  as  often  as 
he  chooses  to  make  tht  experiment — that  in 
the  performance  of  every  volitional  movement 
physical  force  is  put  in  action,  directed,  and 
controlled  by  the  individual  personality  or  egOy 
I  deem  it  as  absurd  and  illogical  to  affirm  that 


6o 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


there  is  no  place  for  a  God  in  nature,  originat- 
ing, directing,  and  controlling  its  forces  by  his 
will,  as  it  would  be  to  assert  that  there  is  no 
place  in  man's  body  for  his  conscious  mind." 

Taking  Haeckel  on  his  own  grcand,  as  above 
defined,  we  may  next  inquire  as  to  the  method 
which  he  employs  in  working  out  his  argument. 
This  may  be  referred  to  three  leading  modes 
of  treatment,  which,  as  they  are  somewhat  di- 
verse from  those  ordinarily  familiar  to  logicians 
and  are  extensively  used  by  evolutionists,  de- 
serve some  illustration,  more  especially  as 
Haeckel  is  a  master  in  their  use. 

An  eminent  French  professor  of  the  art  of 
sleight-of-hand  has  defined  the  leading  principle 
of  jugglers  to  be  that  of  "  appearing  and  dis- 
appearing things ;"  and  this  is  the  best  defini- 
tion that  occurs  to  me  of  one  method  of  rea- 
soning largely  used  by  Haeckel,  and  of  which 
we  need  to  be  on  our  guard  when  we  find  him 
employing,  as  he  does  in  almost  every  page, 
such  phrases  as  "it  cannot  be  doubted,"  "we 
may  therefore  assume,"  "we  may  readily  sup- 
pose," "this  afterward  assumes  or  becomes," 
"we  may  confidently  assert,"  "this  developed 
directly,"  and  the  like,  which  in  his  usage  are 
equivalent  to  the  '^Presto  /"  of  the  conjurer,  and 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


61 


which,  while  we  are  looking  at  one  structure  or 
animal,  enable  him  to  persuade  us  that  it  has 
been  suddenly  transformed  into  something  else. 

In  tracing  the  genealogy  of  man  he  constant- 
ly employs  this  kind  of  sleight-of-hand  in  the 
most  adroit  manner.  He  is  perhaps  describing 
to  us  the  embryo  of  a  fish  or  an  amphibian,  and, 
as  we  become  interested  in  the  curious  details, 
it  is  suddenly  by  some  clever  phrase  trans- 
formed into  a  reptile  or  a  bird ;  and  yet,  with- 
out rubbing  our  eyes  and  reflecting  on  the  dif- 
ferences and  difficulties  which  he  neglects  to 
state,  we  can  scarcely  doubt  that  it  is  the  same 
animal,  after  all 

The  little  lancelet,  or  Amphioxus  (see  Fig.  i), 
of  the  European  seas — a  creature  which  was  at 
one  time  thought  to  be  a  sea-snail,  but  is  really 
more  akin  to  fishes — forms  his  link  of  connec- 
tion between  our  '*  fish-ancestors  "  and  the  in- 
vertebrate animals.  So  important  it:  it  in  this 
respect  that  our  author  waxes  eloquent  in  ex- 
horting us  to  regard  it  "  witii  special  venera- 
tion "  as  representing  our  "  eariiest  Silurian 
vertebrate  ancestors,"  as  being  of  "our  own 
flesh  and  blood,"  and  as  better  worthy  of  being 
an  object  of  "  devoutest  reverence  "  •  than  the 
"  worthless  rabble  of  so-called  *  saints.*  "    In  de- 


(W 


62 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES. 


scribing  this  animal  he  takes  pains  to  inform  us 
that  it  is  more  different  from  an  ordinary  fish 
than  £.  fish  is  from  a  man.  Yet,  as  he  illustrates 
its  curious  and  unique  structure,  before  we  are 
aware,  the  lancelet  is  gone  and  a  fish  is  in  its 
place,  and  this  fish  with  the  potency  to  become 
a  man  in  due  time.  Thus  a  creature  interme- 
diate in  some  respects  between  fishes  and  mol- 
liisks,  or  between  fishes  and  worms,  but  so  far 
apart  from  either  that  it  seems  but  to  mark  the 
width  of  the  gap  between  them,  becomes  an 
easy  stepping-stone  from  one  to  the  other. 

In  like  manner,  the  ascidians,  or  sea-squirts — 
mollusks  of  low  grade,  or,  as  Haeckel  prefers 
to  regard  them,  allied  to  worms — are  most  re- 
mote in  almost  every  respect  from  the  verte- 
brates. But  in  the  young  state  of  some  of 
these  creatures,  and  in  the  adult  condition  of 
one  animal  referred  to  this  group  {Appendic- 
ularia),  they  have  a  sort  of  swimming  tail, 
which  is  stiffened  by  a  rod  of  cartilage  to  en- 
able it  to  perform  its  function,  and  which  for  a 
time  gives  them  a  certain  resemblance  to  the 
lancelet  or  to  embryo  fishes ;  and  this  usually 
temporary  contrivance — curious  as  an  imitative 
adaptation,  but  of  no  other  significance — be- 
comes, by  the  art  of  "  appearing  and  disappear- 


Fig.  I. 


The  Lancelet  {Amphioxus),  the  supposed  earli- 
est type  of  vertebrate  animal,  and,  according  to 
Haeckel,  the  ancestor  of  man.  The  figure  is  a  sec- 
tion enlarged  to  twice  the  natural  size. 

a,  mouth; 

by  anus; 

c,  gill- opening; 

•      d,   gill; 

e,  stomach; 
/,  liver  ; 
g,  intestine; 
h,  gill-cavity; 

i,  notochord,  or  rudimentary  back-bone; 
^>  /.  m,  n,  0,  arteries  and  veins. 


«}' 


63 


;. 


64  FACTS  AND  FANCIES 

ing,"  a  rudimentary  backbone,  and  enables  us 
at  once  to  recognize  in  the  young  ascidian  an 
embryo  man. 

A  second  method  characteristic  of  the  book, 
and  furnishing,  indeed,  the  main  basis  of  its  ar- 
gument, is  that  of  considering  analogous  pro- 
cesses as  identical,  without  regard  to  the  differ- 
ence of  the  conditions  under  which  they  may  be 
carried  on»  The  great  leading  use  of  this  argu- 
ment is  in  inducing  us  to  regard  the  develop- 
ment of  the  individual  animal  as  the  precise 
equivalent  of  the  series  of  changes  by  which 
the  species  was  developed  in  the  course  of  ge- 
ological time.  These  two  kinds  of  develop- 
ment are  distinguished  by  appropriate  names. 
Ontogenesis  is  the  embryonic  development  of 
the  individual  animal,  and  is,  of  course,  a  short 
process,  depending  on  the  production  of  a  germ 
by  a  parent  animal  or  parent  pair,  and  the  fur- 
ther growth  of  this  germ  in  connection  more  or 
less  with  the  parent  or  with  provision  made  by 
it.  This  s,  of  course,  a  fact  open  to  observa- 
tion and  study,  though  some  of  its  processes 
are  mysterious  and  yet  involved  in  doubt  and 
uncertainty.  Phylogenesis  is  the  supposed  de- 
velopment of  a  species  in  the  course  of  geo- 
logical time  and  by  the  intervention  of  long 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


65 


series  of  species,  each  in  its  time  distinct  and 
composed  of  individuals  each  going  regularly 
through  a  genetic  circle  of  its  own. 

The  latter  is  a  process  not  open  to  observa- 
tion within  the  time  at  our  command — purely 
hypothetical,  therefore,  and  of  which  the  possi- 
bility remains  to  be  proved  ;  while  the  causes 
on  which  it  must  depend  are  necessarily  alto- 
gether different  from  those  at  work  in  onto- 
genesis, and  the  conditions  of  a  long  series  of 
different  kinds  of  animals,  each  perfect  in  its 
kind,  are  equally  dissimilar  from  those  of  an 
animal  passing  through  the  regular  stages  from 
infancy  to  maturity.  The  similarity,  in  sortie 
important  respects,  of  ontogenesis  to  phylo- 
genesis was  inevitable,  provided  that  animals 
were  to  be  of  different  grades  of  complexity, 
since  the  development  of  the  individual  must 
necessarily  be  from  a  more  simple  to  a  more 
complex  condition.  On  any  hypothesis,  the 
parallelism  between  embryological  facts  and 
the  history  of  animals  in  geological  time  affords 
many  interesting  and  important  coincidences. 
Yet  it  is  perfectly  obvious  that  the  causes  and 
the  conditions  of  these  two  successions  cannot 
have  been  the  same.  Further,  when  we  con- 
sider that  the  embryo-    il. which  develops  into 


6» 


11' 


66 


FACTS  AND   FANCIES 


9 

one  animal  must  necessarily  be  originally  dis- 
tinct in  its  properties  from  that  which  develops 
into  another  kind  of  animal,  even  though  no 
obvious  difference  appears  to  us,  we  have  no 
ground  for  supposing  that  the  early  stages  of 
all  animals  are  alike ;  and  when  we  rigorously 
compare  the  development  of  any  animal  what- 
ever with  the  successive  appearance  of  animals 
of  the  same  or  similar  groups  in  geological 
time,  we  find  many  things  which  do  not  cor- 
respond— not  merely  in  the  want  of  links 
which  we  might  expect  to  find,  but  in  the  more 
significant  appearance,  prematurely  or  inoppor- 
tunely, of  forms  which  we  would  not  anticipate. 
Yet  the  main  argument  of  Haeckel's  book  is 
the  quiet  assumption  that  anything  found  to 
occur  in  ontogenetic  development  must  also 
have  occurred  in  phylogenesis,  while  manifest 
difficulties  are  got  rid  of  by  assuming  atavisms 
and  abnormalities. 

A  third  characteristic  of  the  method  of  the 
book  is  the  use  of  certain  terms  in  peculiar 
senses,  and  as  implying  certain  causes  which 
are  taken  for  granted,  though  their  efficacy  and 
their  mode  of  operation  are  unknown.  The 
chief  of  the  terms  so  employed  are  "  heredity  " 
and  "  adaptation."     "  Heredity  "  is  usually  un- 


IN  MODKRN  SCIENCF.. 


67 


derstood  as  expressing  the  power  of  permanent 
transmission  of  characters  from  parents  to  off- 
spring, and  in  this  aspect  it  expresses  the  con- 
stancy of  specific  forms ;  but,  as  used  by 
Haeckel,  it  means  the  transmission  by  a  parent 
of  any  exceptional  characters  which  the  individ- 
ual may  have  accidentally  assumed.  "Adapta- 
tion "  has  usually  been  supposed  to  mean  the 
fitting  of  animals  for  their  place  in  nature, 
however  that  came  about ;  as  used  by  Haeckel, 
it  imports  the  power  of  the  individual  animal 
to  adapt  itself  to  changed  conditions  and  to 
transmit  these  changes  to  its  offspring.  Thus 
in  this  philosophy  the  nile  is  made  the  excep- 
tion and  the  exception  the  rule  by  a  skilful  use 
of  familiar  terms  in  new  senses ;  and  heredity 
and  adaptation  are  constantly  paraded  as  if 
they  were  two  potent  divinities  employed  in 
constantly  changing  and  improving  the  face 
of  nature. 

It  is  scarcely  too  much  to  say  that  the  conclu- 
sions of  the  book  are  reached  almost  solely  by 
the  application  of  the  above-mentioned  peculiar 
modes  of  reasoning  to  the  vast  store  of  facts 
at  command  of  the  author,  and  that  the  reader 
who  would  test  these  conclusions  by  the  ordi- 
nary m  3thods  of  judgment  must  be  constantly 


68 


F4CTS  AND  FANCIES 


on  his  guard.  Still,  it  is  not  necessary  to 
believe  that  Haeckel  is  an  intentional  deceiver. 
Such  fallacies  are  those  which  are  especially 
fitted  to  mislead  enthusiastic  specialists,  to  be 
identified  by  them  with  proved  results  of  science, 
and  to  be  held  in  an  intolerant  and  dogmatic 

spirit.  ;■:,.,'.■'■-/,.  ■•■..,„■  ^^^  ■;.■■  '•  ■ 

Having  thus  noticed  Haeckel's  assumptions 
and  his  methods,  we  may  next  shortly  consider 
the  manner  in  which  he  proceeds  to  work  out 
the  phylogeny  of  man.  Here  he  pursues  a 
purely  physiological  method,  only  occasionally 
and  slightly  referring  to  geological  facts.  He 
takes  as  a  first  principle  the  law  long  ago  form- 
ulated by  Hunter,  Omne  vivum  ex  ovo — a  law 
which  modern  research  has  amply  confirmed, 
showing  that  every  animal,  however  complex, 
can  be  traced  back  to  an  ^%gy  which  in  its  sim- 
plest state  is  no  more  than  a  single  cell,  though 
this  cell  requires  to  be  fertilized  by  the  addition 
of  the  contents  of  another  dissimilar  cell,  pro- 
duced either  in  another  organ  of  the  same  in- 
dividual or  in  a  distinct  individial.  This  pro- 
cess of  fertilization  Haeckel  seems  to  regard  as 
unnecessary  in  the  lowest  forms  of  life ;  but, 
though  there  are  some  simple  animals  in  which 
it  has  not  been  recognized,  analogy  would  lead 


\ . 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


69 


US  to  believe  that  In  some  form  it  is  necessary 
in  all.  Haeckel's  monistic  view,  however,  re- 
quires that  in  the  lowest  forms  it  should  be  ab- 
sent and  should  have  originated  spontaneously, 
though  how  does  not  seem  to  be  very  clear,  as 
the  explanation  given  of  it  by  him  amounts  to 
little  more  than  the  statement  that  it  must  have 
occurred.  Still,  as  a  "  dualistic "  process  it  is 
very  significant  with  reference  to  the  monistic 
theory. 

Much  space  is,  of  course,  devoted  to  the  tra- 
cing of  the  special  development  or  ontogenesis 
of  man,  and  to  the  illustration  of  the  tact  that 
in  the  earlier  stages  of  this  development  the 
human  embryo  is  scarcely  distinguishable  from 
that  of  lower  animals.  We  may,  indeed,  affirm 
that  all  animals  start  from  cells  which,  in  so  far 
as  we  can  see,  are  similar  to  each  other,  yet 
which  must  include  potent'ally  the  various  prop- 
erties of  the  animals  which  spring  from  them. 
As  we  trace  them  onward  in  their  development, 
we  see  these  differences  manifesting  themselves. 
At  first  all  pass,  according  to  Haeckel,  through  a 
stage  which  he  calls  the  "  gastrula,"  in  which  the 
whole  body  is  represented  by  a  sort  of  sac,  the 
cavity  of  which  is  the  stomach  and  the  walls  of 
which  consist  of  two  layers  of  cells.     It  should 


70 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


be  stated,  however,  that  many  eminent  natural- 
ists dissent  from  this  view,  and  maintain  that 
even  in  the  earliest  stages  material  differences 
can  be  observed.  In  this  they  are  probably  right, 
as  even  Haeckel  has  to  admit  some  degree  of 
divergence  from  this  all-embracing  "  gastrsea  " 
theory.  Admitting,  however,  that  such  early 
similarity  exists  within  certain  limits,  we  find 
that,  as  the  embryo  advances,  it  speedily  begins 
to  indicate  whether  it  is  to  be  a  coral-animal,  a 
snail,  a  worm,  or  a  fish.  Consequently,  the 
physiologist  who  wishes  to  trace  the  resem- 
blances leading  to  mammals  and  to  man  has  to 
lop  off  one  by  one  the  several  branches  which 
lead  in  other  directions,  and  to  follow  that  which 
conducts  by  the  most  direct  course  to  the  type 
which  he  has  in  view.  In^  this  way  Haeckel  can 
show  that  the  embryo  Homo  sapiens  is  in  succes- 
sive stages  so  like  to  the  young  of  the  fish,  the 
reptile,  the  bird,  and  the  ordinary  quadruped 
that  he  can  produce  for  comparison  figures 
In  which  the  cursory  observer  can  detect  scarce- 
ly any  difference. 

All  this  has  long  been  known,  and  has  been 
regarded  as  a  wonderful  evidence  of  the  ho- 
mology or  unity  of  plan  which  pervades  nature, 
and  as  constituting  man  the  archetype  of  the 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


71 


animal  kingdom — the  highest  realization  of  a  plan 
previously  sketched  by  the  Creator  in  many 
ruder  and  humbler  forms.  It  also  teaches 
that  it  is  not  so  much  in  the  mere  bodily 
organism  that  we  are  to  look  for  the  distin- 
guishing characters  of  humanity  as  in  the  high- 
er rational  and  moral  nature. 

But  Haeckel,  like  other  evolutionists  of  the 
monistic  and  agnostic  schools,  goes  far  beyond 
this.  The  ontogeny,  on  the  evidence  of  anal- 
ogy, as  already  explained,  is  nothing  less  than 
a  miniature  representation  of  the  phylogeny. 
Man  must  in  the  long  ages  of  geological  time 
have  arisen  from  a  monad,  just  as  the  individ- 
ual man  has  in  his  life-history  arisen  from  an 
embryo-cell,  and  the  several  stages  through 
which  the  individual  passes  must  be  parallel 
to  those  in  the  history  of  the  race.  True,  the 
supposed  monad  must  have  been  wanting  in  all 
the  conditions  of  origin,  sexual  fertilization,  pa- 
rental influence,  and  surroundings.  There  is 
no  perceptible  relation  of  cause  and  effect,  any 
more  than  between  the  rotation  of  a  carriage- 
wheel  and  that  of  the  earth  on  its  axis.  The 
analogy  might  prompt  to  inquiries  as  to  com- 
mon laws  and  similarities  of  operation,  but  it 
proves  nothing  ^s  to  causation. 


72 


FACTS  AND   FANCIES 


In  default  of  such  proof,  Haeckel  favors  us 
with  another  analogy,  derived  from  the  science 
of  language.  All  the  Indo-European  lan- 
guages are  believed  to  be  descended  from 
a  common  ancestral  tongue,  and  this  is  anal- 
ogous to  the  descent  of  all  animals  from  one 
primitive  species.  But  unfortunately  the  lan- 
guages in  question  are  the  expressions  of  the 
voice  and  the  thought  of  one  and  the  same 
species.  The  individuals  using  them  are  known 
historically  to  have  descended  by  ordinary  gen- 
eration from  a  common  source,  and  the  con- 
necting-links of  the  various  dialects  are  un- 
broken. The  analog}!^  fails  altogether  in  the 
case  of  species  succeeding  each  other  in  geo- 
logical time,  unless  the  very  thing  to  be  proved 
is  taken  for  granted  in  the  outset. 

The  actual  proof  that  a  basis  exists  in  nature 
for  the  doctrine  of  evolution  founded  on  these 
analogies,  might  be  threefold.  First.  There 
might  be  changes  of  the  nature  of  phylogenesis 
going  on  under  our  own  observation,  and  even 
a  very  few  of  these  would  be  sufficient  to  give 
some  show  of  probability.  Elaborate  attempts 
have  been  made  to  show  that  variations,  as 
existing  in  the  more  variable  of  our  domes- 
ticated species,  lead  in  che  direction  of  such 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


75 


changes ;  but  the  results  have  been  unsatisfac- 
tory, and  our  author  scarcely  condescends  to 
notice  this  line  of  proof.  He  evidently  regards 
the  time  over  which  human  history  has  extended 
as  too  short  to  admit  of  this  kind  of  demon- 
stration. Secondly.  There  might  be  in  the  exist- 
ing system  of  nature  such  a  close  connection 
or  continuous  chain  of  species  as  might  at  least 
strengthen  the  argument  from  analogy ;  and 
undoubtedly  there  are  many  groups  of  closely 
allied  species,  or  of  races  confounded  with  true 
specific  types,  which  it  might  not  be  unreason- 
able to  suppose  of  common  origin.  These  are, 
however,  scattered  widely  apart ;  and  the  con- 
trary fact  of  extensive  gaps  in  the  series  is  so 
frequent,  that  Haeckel  is  constantly  under  the 
necessity  of  supposing  that  multitudes  of 
species,  and  even  of  larger  groups,  have 
perished  just  where  it  is  most  important  to 
his  conclusion  that  they  should  have  remained. 
This  is,  of  course,  unfortunate  for  the  theory ; 
but  then,  as  Haeckel  often  remarks,  "  we  must 
suppose "  that  the  missing  links  once  existed. 
But,  thirdly,  these  gaps  which  now  unhappily 
exist  may  be  filled  up  by  fossil  animals ;  and 
if  in  the  successive  geological  periods  we  could 
trace  the  actual  phylogeny  of  even  a  few  groups 

7 


74 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


of  living  creatures,  we  might  have  the  demon- 
stration desired.  But  here  again  the  gaps  are 
so  frequent  and  so  serious  that  Haeckel  scarcely 
attempts  to  use  this  argument  further  than  by 
giving  a  short  and  somewhat  imperfect  sum- 
mary of  the  geological  succession  in  the  begin- 
ning of  his  second  volume.  In  this  he  attempts 
to  give  a  continuous  series  of  the  ancestors  of 
man  as  developed  in  geological  time ;  but, 
of  twenty-one  groups  which  he  arranges  in 
order  from  the  beginning  of  the  Laurentian 
to  the  modern  period,  at  least  ten  are  not 
known  at  all  as  fossils,  and  others  do  not 
belong,  so  far  as  known,  to  the  ages  to  which 
he  assigns  them.  This  necessity  of  manufac- 
turing facts  does  not  speak  well  for  the  testi- 
mony of  geology  to  the  supposed  phylogeny 
of  man. 

In  point  of  fact,  it  cannot  be  disguised  that, 
though  it  is  possible  to  pick  out  some  series 
of  animal  forms,  like  the  horses  and  camels 
referred  to  by  some  palaeontologists,  which 
simulate  a  genetic  order,  the  general  testimony 
of  palaeontology  is,  on  the  whole,  adverse  to 
the  ordinary  theories  of  evolution,  whether 
applied  to  the  vegetable  or  to  the  animal 
kingdom.     This  the  writer  has  elsewhere  en- 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


7S 


deavored  to  show ;  but  he  may  refer  here  to 
the  labors  of  Barrande,  perhaps  unrivalled  in 
extent  and  accuracy,  which  show  that  in  the 
leading  forms  of  life  in  the  older  geological 
formations  the  succession  is  not  such  as  to 
correspond  with  any  of  the  received  theo- 
ries of  derivation.*  Even  evolutionists,  when 
sufficiently  candid,  admit  their  case  not  proven 
by  geological  evidence.  Gaudry,  one  of  the 
best  authorities  •  on  the  Tertiary  mammalia, 
admits  the  impossibility  of  suggesting  any 
possible  derivation  for  some  of  the  leading 
groups,  and  Saporta,  Mivart,  and  Le  Conte 
fall  back  on  periods  of  rapid  or  paroxysmal 
evolution  scarcely  differing  from  the  idea  of 
creation  by  law,  or  mediate  creation,  as  it  has 
been  termed. 

Thus  the  utmost  value  which  can  be  attached 
to  Haeckel's  argument  from  analogy  w.ould  be 
that  it  suggests  a  possibility  that  the  processes 
which  we  see  carried  on  in  the  evolution  of  the 
individual  may,  in  the  laws  which  regulate  them, 
be  connected  in  some  way  more  or  less  close 
with   those   creative    processes   which   on    the 


*  Those  who  wish  to  understand  the  real  bearings  of  palaeontology 
on  evolution  should  study  Brrra-de's  Memoirs  on  the  Silurian  Trilo- 
bites,  Cephahpods,  and  Brachiopods. 


1^ 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


wider  field  of  geological  time  have  been  con- 
cerned in  the  production  of  the  multitudinous 
forms  of  animal  life.  That  Haeckel's  philos- 
ophy goes  but  a  very  little  way  toward  any 
understanding  of  such  relations,  and  that  our 
present  information,  even  within  the  more  lim- 
ited scope  of  biological  science,  is  too  meagre 
to  permit  of  safe  generalization,  will  appear 
from  the  consideration  of  a  few  facts  taken 
here  and  there  from  the  multitude  employed 
by  him  to  illustrate  the  monistic  theory. 

When  we  are  told  that  a  moner  or  an  embryo- 
cell  is  the  early  stage  of  all  animals  alike,  we 
naturally  ask,  Is  it  meant  that  all  these  cells 
are  really  similar,  or  is  it  only  that  they  appear 
similar  to  us, and  may  actually  be  as  profoundly 
unlike  as  the  animals  which  they  are  destined 
to  produce  ?  To  make  this  question  more 
plain,  let  us  take  the  case  as  formally  stated : 
"  From  the  weighty  fact  that  the  ^^^  of  the  hu- 
man being,  like  the  ^'gg  of  all  other  animals,  is 
a  simple  cell,  it  may  be  quite  certainly  inferred 
that  a  one-celled  parent-form  once  existed,  from 
which  all  the  many-celled  animals,  man  included, 
developed." 

Now,  let  us  suppose  that  we  have  under  our 
microscope   a   one-celled   animalcule  quite   as 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


77 


simple  in  structure  as  our  supposed  ancestor. 
Along  with  this  we  may  have  on  the  same  slide 
another  cell,  which  is  the  embryo  of  a  worm, 
and  a  third,  which  is  the  embryo  of  a  man.  All 
these,  according  to  the  hypothesis,  are  similar 
in  appearance ;  so  that  we  can  by  no  means 
guess  which  is  destined  to  continue  always  an 
animalcule,  or  which  will  become  a  worm  or 
may  develop  into  a  poet  or  a  philosopher.  Is 
it  meant  that  the  things  are  actually  alike  or 
only  apparently  so  ?  If  they  are  really  alike, 
then  their  destinies  must  depend  on  external 
circumstances.  Put  either  of  them  into  a  pond, 
and  it  will  remain  a  monad.  Put  either  of  them 
into  the  ovary  of  a  complex  animal,  and  it  will 
develop  into  the  likeness  of  that  animal.  But 
such  similarity  is  altogether  improbable,  and  it 
would  destroy  the  argument  of  the  evolution- 
ist. In  this  case  he  would  be  hopelessly  shut 
up  to  the  conclusion  that  "hens  were  before 
^§"gs ;"  and  Haeckel  elsewhere  informs  us  that 
the  exactly  opposite  view  is  necessarily  that  of 
the  monistic  evolutionist.  Thus,  though  it  may 
often  be  convenient  to  speak  of  these  three 
kinds  of  cells  as  if  they  were  perfectly  similar, 
the  method  of  "  disappearance  "  has  immediate- 
ly to  be  resorted  to,  and  they  are  shown  to  be,  in 

7» 


f 


I.! 


78 


FACTS    ^ND   FANCIES 


fact,  quite  dissimilar.  There  is,  indeed,  the  best 
ground  to  suppose  that  the  one-celled  animals 
and  the  embryo-cells  referred  to,  have  little  in 
common  except  their  general  form.  We  know 
that  the  most  minute  cell  must  include  a  suf- 
ficient number  of  molecules  of  protoplasm  to 
admit  of  great  varieties  of  possible  arrange- 
ment, and  that  these  may  be  connected  with 
most  varied  possibilities  as  to  the  action  of 
forces.  Further,  the  embryo-cell  which  is  pro- 
duced by  a  particular  kind  of  animal,  and  whose 
development  results  in  the  reproduction  of  a 
similar  animal,  must  contain  potentially  the 
parts  and  structures  which  are  evolved  from 
it ;  and  fact  shows  that  this  may  be  affirmed  of 
both  the  embryo  and  the  sperm-cells  where 
there  are  two  sexes.  Therefore  it  is  in  the 
highest  degree  probable  that  the  eggs  of  a 
worm  and  those  of  man,  though  possibly  alike 
to  our  coarse  methods  of  investigation,  are  as 
dissimilar  as  the  animals  that  result  from  them. 
If  so,  the  "  ^^g  may  be  before  the  hen ;"  but  it 
is  as  difficult  to  imagine  the  spontaneous  pro- 
duction of  the  ^^^  which  is  potentially  the  hen 
as  of  the  hen  itself.  Thus  the  similarity  of  the 
eggs  and  early  embryos  of  animals  of  different 
grades  is  apparent  only;  and  this  fact,  which 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


79 


embodies  a  great,  and  perhaps  insoluble,  mys- 
tery, invalidates  the  whole  of  Haeckel's  reason- 
ing on  the  alleged  resemblances  of  different 
kinds  of  animals  in  'their  early  stages. 

A  second  difficulty  arises  from  the  fact  that 
the  simple  embryo- cell  of  any  of  the  higher 
animals  rapidly  produces  various  kinds  of  spe- 
cialized cells  different  in  structure  and  appear- 
ance and  capable  of  performing  different  func- 
tions, whereas  in  the  lower  forms  of  life  such 
cells  may  remain  simple  or  may  merely  produce 
several  similar  cells  little  or  not  at  all  differ- 
entiated. This  objection,  whenever  it  occurs, 
Haeckel  endeavors  to  turn  by  the  assertion 
that  a  complex  animal  is  merely  an  aggregate 
of  independent  cells,  each  of  which  is  a  sort  of 
individual.  He  thus  tries  to  break  up  the  in- 
tegrity of  the  complex  organism  and  to  reduce 
it  to  a  mere  swarm  of  monads.  He  compares 
the  cells  of  an  organism  to  the  "  individuals 
of  a  savage  community,"  who,  at  first  separate 
and  all  alike  in  their  habits  and  occupations,  at 
length  organize  themselves  into  a  community 
and  assume  different  avocations.  Single  cells, 
he  says,  at  first  were  alike,  and  each  performed 
the  same  simple  offices  of  all  the  others.  "  At 
a  later  period  isolated  cells  gathered  into  com- 


8o 


FACTS  AMD   FANCIES 


munities ;  groups  of  simple  cells  which  had 
arisen  from  the  continued  division  of  a  single 
cell  remained  together,  and  now  began  grad- 
ually to  perform  different  offices  of  life." 

But  this  is  a  mere  vague  analogy.  It  does 
not  represent  anything  actually  occurring  in 
nature,  except  in  the  case  of  an  embryo  pro- 
duced by  some  animal  which  already  shows  all 
the  tissues  which  its  embryo  is  destined  to  re- 
produce. Thus  it  establishes  no  probability 
of  the  evolution  of  complex  tissues  from  sim- 
ple cells)  and  leaves  altogether  unexplained  that 
wonderful  process  by  which  the  embryo-cell 
not  only  divides  into  many  cells,  but  becomes 
developed  into  all  the  variety  of  dissimilar  tis- 
sues evolved  from  the  homogeneous  ^^^ ;  but 
evolved  from  it,  as  we  naturally  suppose,  be- 
cause of  the  fact  that  the  ^gg  represents  po- 
tentially all  these  tissues  as  existing  previously 
in  the  parent  organism. 

But  if  we  are  content  to  waive  these  objec- 
tions or  to  accept  the  solutions  given  of  them 
by  the  **  appearance-and-disappearance  "  argu- 
ment, we  still  find  that  the  phylogeny,  unlike 
the  ontogenesis,  is  full  of  wide  gaps  only  to  be 
passed /^r  saltum  or  to  be  accounted  for  by  the 
disappearance  of  a  vast  number  of  connecting- 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


8i 


links.  Of  course,  it  is  easy  to  suppose  that 
these  intermediate  forms  have  been  lost  through 
time  and  accident,  but  why  this  has  happened 
to  some  rather  than  to  others  cannot  be  ex- 
plained. In  the  phylogeny  of  man,  for  exam- 
ple, what  a  vast  hiatus  yawns  between  the  as- 
cidian  and  the  lancelet,  and  another  between 
the  lancelet  and  the  lamprey !  It  is  true  that 
the  missing  links  may  have  consisted  of  animals 
little  likely  to  be  preserved  as  fossils ;  but  why, 
if  they  ever  existed,  do  not  some  of  them  re- 
main in  the  modern  seas  ?  Again,  when  we 
have  so  many  species  of  apes  and  so  many 
races  of  men,  why  can  we  find  no  trace,  recent 
or  fossil,  of  that  "  missing  link  "  which  we  are 
told  must  have  existed,  the  "ape-like  men," 
known  to  Haeckel  as  the  "Alali,"  or  speech- 
less men  ? 

A  further  question  which  should  receive  con- 
sideration from  the  monist  school  is  that  very 
serious  one,  Why,  if  all  is  "  mechanical "  in  the 
development  and  actions  of  living  beings,  should 
there  be  any  progress  whatever  ?  Ordinary  peo- 
ple fail  to  understand  why  a  world  of  mere  dead 
matter  should  not  go  on  to  all  eternity  obeying 
physical  and  chemical  laws  without  developing 
life ;  or  why,  if  some  low  form  of  life  were  intro- 


82 


FACTS  AND   FANCIES. 


. 


duced  capable  of  reproducing  simple  one-celled 
organisms,  it  should  not  go  on  doing  so. 

Further,  even  if  some  chance  deviations  should 
occur,  we  fail  to  perceive  why  these  should  go  on 
in  a  definite  manner  producing  not  only  the  most 
complex  machines,  but  many  kinds  of  such  ma- 
chines^on  different  plans,  but  each  perfect  in  its 
way.  Haeckel  is  never  weary  of  telling  us  that 
to  monists  organisms  are  mere  machines.  Even 
his  own  mental  work  is  merely  the  grinding  of 
a  cerebral  machine.  But  he  seems  not  to  per- 
ceive that  to  such  a  philosophy  the  homely  ar- 
gument which  Paley  derived  from  the  structure 
of  a  watch  would  be  fatal :  "  The  question  is 
whether  machines  (which  monists  consider  all 
animals  to  be,  including  themselves)  infinitely 
more  complicated  than  watches  could  come  into 
existence  without  design  somewhere"* — that  is, 
by  mere  chance.  Common  sense  is  not  likely 
to  admit  that  this  is  possible. 

The  difficulties  above  referred  to  relate  to  the 
introduction  of  life  and  of  new  species  on  the 
monistic  view.  Others  might  be  referred  to  in 
connection  with  the  production  of  new  organs. 
An  illustration  is  afforded,  aniong  others,  by  the 
discussion  of  the  introduction  of  the  five  fingers 

*  Beckett,  Origin  of  the  Laws  of  Nature. 


mti 


Fig.  2. 


Impression  of  five  fingers  and  five  toes  of  an  Amphibian  of  the 
Lower  Carboniferous  Age,  from  the  lowest  Carboniferous  beds  in 
Nova  Scotia— an  evidence  oi  the  fact  that  the  number  five  was 
already  selected  for  the  hands  and  feet  of,  the  enrliest  known  land 
vertebrates,  and  that  the  decimal  system  of  notniu,..,  with  all  that 
it  involves  to  man,  was  determined  in  the  Palaeozoic  Age.  The  upper 
figure  natural  size,  the  lower  reduced. 


83 


84 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


and  toes  of  man,  which  appear  to  descend  to  us 
unchanged  from  the  amphibians  or  batrachians 
of  the  Carboniferous  period.  In  this  ancient 
age  of  the  earth's  geological  history,  feet  with 
five  toes  appear  in  numerous  species  of  rep- 
tilians of  various  grades  (Fig.  2).  They  are 
preceded  by  no  other  vertebrates  than  fishes, 
and  these  have  numerous  fin-rays  instead  of 
toes.  There  are  no  properly  transitional  forms 
either  fossil  or  recent.  ♦How  were  the  five-fin-  ., 
gered  limbs  acquired  in  this  abr  ;pt  way  ?  Why 
were  they  five  rather  than  any  other  number  ? 
Why,  when  once  introduced,  have  they  cr  'tinued  . 
unchanged  up  to  the  "present  day?  Haeckel's 
answer  is  a  curious  example  of  his  method:  v 
"  The  great  significance  of  the  five  digits  de- 
pends on  the  fact  that  this  number  has  been 
transmitted  from  the  Amphibia  to  all  higher 
vertebrates.  It  would  be  impossible  to  dis- 
cover any  reason  why  in  the  lowest  Amphibia, 
aj  well  as  in  reptiles  and  in  higher  vertebrates 
up  to  man,  there  should  always  originally  be 
five  digits  on  each  of  the  anterior  and  posterior 
limbs,  if  we  denied  that  heredity  trom  a  com- 
mon five-fingered  parent-form  is  the  efficient 
cause  of  this  phenomenon ;  heredity  can  alone 
account  for  it.     In  many  Amphibia  certainly,  as 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


85 


well  as  in  many  higher  vertebrates,  we  find  less 
than  five  digits.  But  in  all  these  cases  it  can 
be  shown  that  separate  digits  have  retrograded, 
and  have  finally  been  completely  lost.  The 
causes  which  affected  the  development  of  the 
five-fingered  foot  of  the  higher  vertebrates  in 
this  amphibian  form  from  the  many-fingered 
foot  (or  properly  fin),  must  certainly  be  found 
in  the  adaptation  to  the  totally  altered  functions 
which  the  limbs  had  to  discharge  during  the 
transition  from  an  exclusively  aquatic  life  to  one 
which  was  partially  terrestrial.  While  the  many- 
fingered  fins  of  the  fish  had  previously  served 
almost  exclusively  to  propel  the  body  through 
the  water,  they  had  now  also  to  afford  support 
to  the  animal  when  creeping  on  the  land.  This 
effected  a  modification  both  of  the  skeleton  and 
of  the  muscles  of  the  limbs.  The  number  of  fin- 
rays  was  gradually  lessened,  and  was  finally  re- 
duced to  five.  These  five  remaining  rays  were, 
however,  developed  more  vigorously.  The  soft 
cartilaginous  rays  became  hard  bones.  The  rest 
of  the  skeleton  also  became  considerably  more 
firm.  The  movements  of  the  body  became  not 
only  more  vigorous,  but  also  more  varied  ;"  and 
the  paragraph  proceeds  to  state  other  ameliora- 
tions of  muscular  and  nervous  system  supposed 

8 


86 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


to  be  related  to  or  caused  by  the  improvement 
of  the  Hmbs. 

It  will  be  observed  that  in  the  above  extract, 
under  the  formula  **  the  causes  which  affected 
the  development  of  the  five-fingered  foot  .  .  . 
must  certainly  be  found,"  all  that  other  men 
would  regard  as  demanding  proof  is  quietly 
assumed,  and  the  animal  grows  before  our 
eyes  from  a  fish  to  a  reptile  as  under  the 
wand  of  a  conjurer.  Further,  the  transmission 
of  the  five  toes  is  attributed  to  heredity  or  un- 
changed reproduction,  but  this,  of  course,  gives 
no  explanation  of  the  original  formation  of  the 
structure,  nor  of  the  causes  which  prevented 
heredity  from  applying  to  the  fishes  which 
became  amphibians  and  acquired  five  toes, 
or  to  the  amphibians  which  faithfully  trans- 
mitted their  five  toes,  but  not  their  other 
characteristics. 

It  is  perhaps  scarcely  profitable  to  follow 
further  the  criticism  of  this  extraordinary 
book.  It  may  be  necessary,  however,  to  re- 
peat that  it  contains  clear,  and  in  the  main 
accurate,  sketches  of  the  embryology  of  a 
numbei  of  animals,  only  slightly  colored  by 
the  tendency  to  minimize  differences.  It  may 
also    be    necessary   to    say   that   in   criticising 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


87 


Haeckel  we  take  him  on  his  own  ground — that 
of  a  monist — and  have  no  special  feference 
to  those  many  phases  which  the  philosophy 
of  evolution  assumes  in  the  minds  of  other 
naturalists,  many  of  whom  accept  it  only  par- 
tially or  as  a  form  of  mediate  creation  more  or 
less  reconcilable  with  theism.  To  these  more 
moderate  views  no  reference  has  been  made, 
though  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  many  of 
them  are  quite  as  assailable  as  the  position 
of  Haeckel  in  point  of  argument.  It  may 
also  be  observed  that  Haeckel's  argument  is 
almost  exclusively  biological  and  confined  to 
the  animal  kingdom,  and  to  the  special  line 
of  descent  attributed  to  irian.  The  monistic 
hypothesis  becomes,  as  already  stated,  still 
less  tenable  when  tested  by  the  facts  of  palae- 
ontology. Hence  most  of  the  palaeontologists 
who  favor  evolution  appear  to  shrink  from 
the  extreme  position  of  Haeckel.  Gaudry, 
one  of  the  ablest  of  this  school,  in  ^his  recent 
work  oil  the  development  of  the  Mammalia, 
candidly  admits  the  multitude  of  facts  for 
which  derivation  will  not  account,  and  per- 
ceives in  the  grand  succession  of  animals  in 
time  the  evidence  of  a  wise  and  far-reaching 
creative  plan,  concluding  with  the  words :  "  We 


88 


FACTS  AND   FANCIES 


may  still  leave  out  of  the  question  the  pro- 
cesses by  which  the  Author  of  the  world  has 
produced  the  changes  of  which  palasontology 
presents  the  picture."  In  like  manner,  the 
Count  de  Saporta  in  his  World  of  Plants 
closes  his  summary  of  the  periods  of  vegeta- 
tion with  the  words :  "  But  if  we  ascend  from 
one  phenomenon  to  another,  beyond  the  sphere 
of  contingent  and  changeable  appearance,  we 
find  ourselves  arrested  by  a  Being  unchange- 
able and  supreme,  the  first  expression  ^nd 
absolute  cause  of  all  existence,  in  whom  diver- 
sity unites  with  unity,  an  eternal  problem,  in- 
soluble to  science,  but  ever  present  to  the 
human  consciousness.  Here  we  reach  the 
true  source  of  the  idea  of  religion,  and  there 
presents  itself  distinctly  to  the  mind  that  con- 
ception to  which  we  apply  instinctively  the 
name  of  God." 

Thus  these  evolutionists,  like  many  others 
in  this  country  and  in  England,  find  a  modus 
vivendi  between  evolution  and  theism.  They 
have  committed  themselves  to  an  interpreta- 
tion of  nature  which  may  prove  fanciful  and 
evanescent,  and  which  certainly  up  to  this 
time  remains  an  hypothesis,  ingenious  and 
captivating,  but   not  fortified   by  the'  evidence 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


89 


of  facts.  But  in  doing  so  they  are  not  pre- 
pared to  accept  the  purely  mechanical  creed 
of  the  monist,  or  to  separate  themselves  from 
those  ideas  of  morality,  of  religion,  and  of 
sonship  to  God  which  have  hitherto  been  the 
brightest  gems  in  the  crown  of  man  as  the 
lord  of  this  lower  world.  Whether  they  can 
maintain  this  position  against  the  monists,  and 
whether  they  will  be  able  in  the  end  to  retain 
any  practical  form  of  religion  along  with  the 
doctrine  of  the  derivation  of  man  from  the 
lower  animals,  remains  to  be  seen.  Possibly 
before  these  questions  come  to  a  final  issue 
the  philosophy  of  evolution  may  itself  have 
been  "  modified  "  or  have  given  place  to  some 
new  phase  of  thought. 

One  curious  point  in  this  connection,  to  which 
little  attention  has  been  given  by  evolutionists, 
is  that  to  which  Herbert  Spencer  has  given  the 
name  of  "  direct  equilibration,"  though  he  is  suf- 
ficiently wise  not  to  invite  too  much  attention 
to  it.  This  is  the  balance  of  parts  and  forces 
within  the  organism  itself.  The  organism  is  a 
complex  machine ;  and  if  its  parts  have  been 
put  together  by  chance  and  are  drifting  onward 
in  the  path  of  evolution,  there  must  of  neces- 
sity be  a  continual  struggle  going  on  between 

8» 


I 


I 


90  FACTS  AND  FANCIES 

the  different  organs  and  functions,  each  tending 
to  swallow  up  the  others  and  each  struggling 
for  its  own  existence.  This  resolution  of  the 
body  of  each  animal  into  a  house  divided 
against  itself  is  at  first  sight  so  revolting  to 
common  sense  and  right  feeling  that  few  like 
to  contemplate  it.  Roux  and  other  recent 
writers,  however,  especially  in  Germany,  have 
brought  it  into  prominence,  and  it  is  no  doubt 
a  necessary  consequence  of  the  evolutionary 
idea,  though  altogether  at  variance  with  the 
theory  of  intelligent  design,  which  supposes 
the  animal  machine  put  together  with  care 
and  for  a  purpose,  and  properly  adjusted  in 
all  its  parts.  On  the  hypothesis  of  evolution, 
the  animal  thus  ceases  to  be,  in  the  proper 
sense  of  the  term,  even  a  machine,  and  be- 
comes a  mere  mass  of  conflicting  parts  depend- 
ing for  any  constancy  they  may  have  on  a 
chance  balancing  of  hostile  forces,  without  any 
compelling  power  to  bring  them  together  at 
first,  or  any  means  to  bind  them  to  joint  action 
in  the  system.  The  more  such  a  doctrine  is 
considered,  the  more  difficult  does  it  seem  to 
believe  in  the  possibility  of  its  truth.  Evolu- 
tion has  already  reduced  the  cosmos  into  chaos, 
the  harmony  of  the  universe  into  discord ;  but 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


91 


a 

:iL 

m 
lis 
to 


It 


it  seems  past  belief  to  introduce  this  into  the 
microcosm  itself,  and  to  see  nothing  in  its  ex- 
quisite adjustments  except  the  momentary  equi- 
librium of  a  well-balanced  fight.  Geological 
history  also  adds  to  the  absurdity  of  such  a 
view  by  showing  the  marvellous  permanence 
of  many  fbrms  of  life  which  have  continued  to 
perpetuate  themselves  through  almost  immeas- 
urable ages  without  material  changes,  thus 
proving  unanswerably  the  perfect  adjustment 
of  their  parts. 

Viewed  rightly,  this  direct  equilibration  of  the 
parts  of  the  animal  seems  to  throw  the  greatest 
possible  doubt  on  the  capacity  of  any  form  of 
evolution  to  produce  new  species.  It  is  cer- 
tain, from  the  facts  collected  by  Mr.  Darwin 
himself  in  his  work  on  animals  under  domes- 
tication, that  when  m.an  disturbs  the  balance  of 
any  organism  by  changing  in  any  way  the  re- 
lations of  its  parts,  he  introduces  elements  of 
instability  and  weakness,  which,  despite  the  ef- 
forts of  nature  to  correct  the  evils  resulting, 
speedily  lead  to  degeneracy,  infertility,  and  ex- 
tinction. Mr.  T.  Warren  O'Neil  of  Philadel- 
phia has  recently  argued  this  point  with  much 
ability,*  and  has  shown,  on  the  testimony  of 

*  Refutation  of  Darwinism,  Philadelphia,  1880. 


■ 

i 


92  FACTS  AND   FANCIES 

Darwin's  facts,  that  unless  "  natural  selection" 
is  a  much  more  skilful  breeder  than  man,  and 
possesses  some  secrets  not  yet  discovered  by 
us,  the  effects  of  this  iipaginary  power  would 
lead,  not  to  the  production  of  new  species,  but 
merely  to  the  extinction  of  those  already  ex- 
isting. In  short,  all  the  evidence  goes  to  show 
that — so  beautifully  balanced  are  the  parts  of 
the  organism — any  excess  or  deficiency  in  any 
of  them,  when  artificially  or  accidentally  intro- 
duced, brings  in  elements  not  only  of  instabil- 
ity, but  of  decay  and  destruction.  This  subject 
is  deserving  of  a  more  full  treatment  than  it 
can  receive  here,  but  enough  has  been  said  to 
show  that  in  this  evolutionists  have  unwittingly 
furnished  us  with  a  new  confirmation  of  the 
theory  of  intelligent  design. 

In  some  places  there  are  in  Haeckel's  book 
touches  of  a  grim  humor  which  are  not  without 
interest,  as  showing  the  subjective  side  of  the 
monistic  theory  and  illustrating  the  attitude 
of  its  professors  to  things  held  sacred  by  other 
men.  For  example,  the  following  is  the  intro- 
duction to  the  chapter  headed  "  From  the  Prim- 
itive Worm  to  the  Skulled  Animal,"  and  which 
has  for  its  motto  the  lines  of  Goethe  be- 
ginning : 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


93 


"  Not  like  the  gods  am  I !  full  well  I  know ; 
But  like  the  worms  which  in  the  dust  must  go,"  .•    , 

"  Both  in  prose  and  poetry  man  Is  very  often 
compared  to  a  worm  ;  '  a  miserable  worm,'  •  a 
poor  worm,'  are  common  and  almost  compas- 
sionate phrases.  If  we  cannot  detect  any  deep 
phylogenetic  •  reference  in  this  zoological  met- 
aphor, we  might  at  least  safely  assert  that  it 
contains  an  unconscious  comparison  with  a 
low  condition  of  animal  development  which 
is  interesting  in  its  bearing  on  the  pedigree 
of  the  human  race." 

If  Haeckel  were  well  read  in  Scripture,  he 
might  have  quoted  here  the  melancholy  con- 
fession of  the  man  of  Uz :  "I  have  said  to  the 
worm,  Thou  art  my  mother  and  my  sister." 
But,  though  Job,  like  the  German  professor, 
could  humbly  say  to  the  worm,  "  Thou  art  my 
mother,"  he  could  still  hold  fast  his  integrity 
and  believe  in  the  fatherhood  of  God. 

The  moral  bearing  of  monism  is  further 
illustrated  by  the  following  extract,  which 
refers  to  a  more  advanced  step  of  the  evolu- 
tion— that  from  the  ape  to  man — and  which 
shows  the  honest  pride  of  the  worthy  pro- 
fessor in  his  humble  parentage :  "  Just  as  most 
people  prefer  to  trace   their   pedigree  from  a 


IMAGE  EVALUATrON 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


^^— 


1.0    !rfi^  llM 


I.I 


1.25 


«*       140 

1i       las 


M 

2.0 


U    IIIIII.6 


V] 


^ 


/a 


'^/. 


/j 


w 


M 


Photographic 

Sciences 
Corporation 


r^^ 


V 


s^ 


V 


\\ 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  NY    14580 

(716)  872-4503 


V 


o\ 


y,^^^ 


'':'•': 


\V  ••"'       iit^-    ,  i 


94  FACTS  AND  FANCIES 

decayed  baron,  or  if  possible  from  a  celebrated 
prince,  rather  than  from  an  unknown  humble 
peasant,  so  they  prefer  seeing  the  progenitor 
of  the  human  race  in  an  Adam  degraded  by 
the  fall,  rather  than  in  an  ape  capable  of  higher 
development  and  progress.  It  is  a  matter  of 
taste,  and  such  genealogical  preferences  do 
not,  therefore,  admit  of  discussion.  It  is  more 
to  my  individual  taste  to  be  the  more  highly- 
developed  descendant  of  an  ape,  who  in  the 
struggle  for  existence  had  developed  pro- 
gressively from  lower  mammals  as  they  from 
still  lower  vertebrates,  than  the  degraded  de- 
scendant of  an  Adam,  Godlike  but  debased 
by  the  fall,  who  was  formed  from  a  clod  of 
earth,  and  of  an  Eve  created  from  a  rib  of 
Adam.  As  regards  the  celebrated  *rib,'  I  must 
here  expressly  add,  as  a  supplement  to  the 
history  of  the  development  of  the  skeleton, 
that  the  number  of  ribs  is  the  same  in  man 
and  in  woman.*  In  the  latter  as  well  as  in 
the  former  the  ribs  originate  from  the  skin- 
fibrous  layer,  and  are  to  be  regarded  phyloge- 
netically  as  lower  or  ventral  vertebra;."  f 

*  It  was  scarcely  necessary  to  refer  to  this  childish  objection  unless 
the  individual  skeleton  of  Adam  had  been  in  question, 
f  Rather,     vertebral  arches." 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


95 


There  is  no  accounting  for  tastes,  yet  we 
may  be  pardoned  for  retaining  some  prefer- 
ence for  the  first  link  of  the  old  Jewish  gene- 
alogical table :  "  Which  was  the  son  of  Adam, 
which  was  the  son  of  "God."  As  to  the  "  de- 
basement" of  the  fall,  it  is  to  be  feared  that 
the  aboriginal  ape  would  object  to  bearing  the 
blame  of  existing  human  iniquities  as  having 
arisen  from  any  improvement  in  his  nature 
and  habits  ;  and  it  is  scarcely  fair  to  speak  of 
Adam  as  "  formed  from  a  clod  of  earth,"  which 
is  not  precisely  in  accordance  with  the  record. 
As  to  the  "rib,"  which  seems  so  offensive  to 
Haeckel,  one  would  have  thought  that  he 
would,  as  an  evolutionist,  have  had  some  fel- 
low-feeling in  this  with  the  writer  of  Genesis. 
The  origin  of  sexes  is  one  of  the  acknow- 
ledged difficulties  of  the  hypothesis,  and,  using 
his  method,  we  might  surely  "assume,"  or  even 
"  confidently  assert,"  the  possibility  that,  in  some 
early  stage  of  the  development,  the  unfinished 
vertebral  arches  of  the  "  skin-fibrous  layer " 
might  have  produced  a  new  individual  by  a 
process  of  budding  or  gemmation.  Quite  as 
remarkable  suppositions  are  contained  in  some 
parts  of  his  own  volumes,  without  any  special 
divine  power  for   rendering   them  practicable. 


96 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


Further,  if  only  an  individual  man  originated 
in  the  first  instance,  and  if  he  were  not  pro- 
vided with  a  suitable  spouse,  he  might  have 
intermarried  with  the  unimproved  anthropoids, 
and  the  results  of  the  evolution  would  have 
been  lost.  Such  considerations  should  have 
weighed  with  Haeckel  in  inducing  him  to  speak 
more  respectfully  of  Adam's  rib,  especially  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  in  dealing  with  the  hard 
question  of  human  origin  the  author  of  Genesis 
had  not  the  benefit  of  the  researches  of  Baer 
and  Haeckel,  He  had,  no  doubt,  the  advantage 
of  a  firm  faith  in  the  reality  of  that  Creative 
Will  which  the  monistic  prophets  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  have  banished  from  their  calcu- 
lations. Were  Haeckel  not  a  monist,  he  might 
also  be  reminded  of  that  grand  doctrine  of  the 
lordship  and  superiority  of  man  based  on  the 
fact  that  there  was  no  "  help  meet  for  him ;" 
and  the  foundation  of  the  most  sacred  bond 
of  human  society  on  the  saying  of  the  first 
man :  **  This  is  now  bone  of  my  bones,  and  flesh 
of  my  flesh."  But  monists  probably  attach 
little  value  to  such  ideas. 

It  may  be  proper  to  add  here  that  in  his  ref- 
erences to  Adam,  Haeckel  betrays  a  weakness 
not  unusual  with  his  school,  in  putting  a  false 


i 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE.  97 

gloss  on  the  old  record  of  Genesis.  The  state- 
ment that  man  was  formed  from  the  dust  of 
the  ground  implifes  no  more  than  the  produc- 
tion of  his  body  from  the  common  materials 
employed  in  the  construction  of  other  animals ; 
this  also  in  contradistinction  from  the  higher  na- 
ture derived  from  the  inbreathing  or  inspiration 
of  God.  The  precise  nature  of  the  method  by 
which  man  was  made  or  created  is  not  stated  by 
the  author  of  Genesis.  Further,  it  would  have 
been  as  easy  for  Divine  Power  to  create  a  pair 
as  an  individual.  If  this  was  not  done,  and  if 
after  the  lesson  of  superiority  taught  by  the  in- 
spection of  lower  animals,  and  the  lesson  of 
language  taught  by  naming  them,  the  first  man 
in  his  "  deep  sleep  "  is  conscious  of  the  removal 
of  a  portion  of  his  own  flesh,  and  then  on  awak- 
ing has  the  woman  "  brought "  to  him,  all  this  is 
to  teach  a  lesson  not  to  be  otherwise  learned. 
The  Mosaic  record  is  thus  perfectly  consistent 
with  itself  and  with  its  own  doctrine  of  creation 
by  Almighty  Power. 

I  have  quoted  the  above  passages  as  exam- 
ples of  the  more  jocose  vein  of  the  Jena  phys- 
iologist ;  but  they  constitute  also  a  serious  rev- 
elation of  the  influence  of  his  philosophy  on  his 

own  mind  and  heart,  in  lowering  both  to  a  cold, 
9 


■ 


%^' 


98 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


mechanical,  and  unsympathetic  view  of  man  and 
nature.  This  is  especially  serious  when  we  re- 
member how  earnestly  in  a  recent  address  he 
advocated  the  teaching  of  the  methods  and  re- 
sults of  this  book,  as  those  which,  in  the  present 
state  of  knowledge,  should  supersede  the  Bible 
in  our  schools.  We  may  well  say,*with  his  great 
opponent  on  that  occasion,  that  if  such  doctrines 
should  be  proved  to  be  true,  the  teaching  of 
them  might  become  a  necessity,  but  one  that 
would  bring  us  face  to  face  with  the  darkest  and 
most  dangerous  moral  problem  that  has  ever 
beset  humanity ;  and  that  so  long  as  they  re- 
main unproved  it  is  both  unwise  and  criminal 
to  propagate  them  among  the  mass  of  men 
as  conclusions  which  have  been  demonstrated 
by  science. 

In  conclusion,  we  may  notice  shortly  a  few 
of  the  consequences  of  the  monistic  evolution 
as  held  by  Haeckel  and  others.  Doctrines  are 
perhaps  not  to  be  judged  by  the  consequences 
— at  least,  by  the  immediate  consequences — of 
their  acceptance.  Yet  if  their  logical  conse- 
quences are  such  as  to  introduce  confusion  into 
our  higher  ideas  and  sentiments,  we  have  rea- 
son to  hesitate  as  to  their  adoption — if  on  no 
other  ground,  because  we  ourselves  are  a  part 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE, 


99 


of  nature  and  should  be  in  harmony  with  any 
true  explanation  of  it 

We  may  afifirm  in  this  connection  that  agnos- 
tic evolution  reduces  all  our  science  to  mere 
evanescent  anthropomorphic  fancies;  so  that, 
like  a  parasite,  it  first  supports  itself  on  the 
strength  and*  substance  of  science,  and  then 
strangles  it  to  death.  Physical  science  is  a 
product  of  our  thinking  as  to  external  things. 
If,  therefore,  the  thinking  brain  and  the  ex- 
ternal nature  which  it  studies  are  both  of  them 
the  fortuitous  products  of  blind  tendencies  in  a 
process  of  continuous  flux  and  vicissitude,  our 
science  can  embody  no  elements  of  eternal 
truth  nor  any  conceptions  as  to  the  plans  of 
a  higher  creative  reason.  In  that  case  it  is  ab- 
solutely worthless,  and  a  pure  waste  of  time 
and  energy,  except  in  so  far  as  it  may  yield  any 
temporary  material  advantages. 

Further,  the  agnostic  evolution  thus  leaves 
us  as  orphans  in  the  midst  of  a  cold  and  insen- 
sate nature.  We  are  no  longer  dwellers  in  our 
Father's  house,  beautiful  and  fitted  for  us^  but 
are  thrown  into  the  midst  of  a  hideous  conflict 
of  dead  forces,  in  which  we  must  finally  perish 
and  be  annihilated.  In  a  struggle  so  hopeless 
it  is  a  mere  mockery  to  tell  us  that  in  miUioris 


100  FACTS  AND  FANCIES 

of  years  something  better  may  come  out  of  it, 
for  we  know  that  this  will  be  of  no  avail  to  us, 
and  we  feel  that  it  is  impossible.  Thus  the 
agnostic  philosophy,  if  it  be  once  accepted  as 
true,  seriously  raises  the  question  whether  life 
is  worth  living. 

But  if  worth  living,  then  it  mUst  be  for  the 
immediate  and  selfish  gratification  of  our  de- 
sires and  passions ;  and  since  we  are  deprived 
of  God  and  conscience,  and  right  and  wrong, 
and  future  reward  or  punishment,  and  all  men 
are  alike  in  this  position,  there  can  be  nothing 
left  for  us  but  to  rend  and  fight  with  our  fellows 
for  such  share  of  good  as  may  fall  to  us  in  the 
deadly  struggle,  that  we  may  reach  such  happi- 
ness as  may  be  possible  for  us  in  such  an 
existence,  err»  we  drift  into  nonenity.  Here, 
again,  we  are  told  that  the  struggle  will  some 
time  lead  to  the  survival  of  the  fittest,  and  that 
the  fittest  may  inaugurate  a  new  and  better 
reign  of  peace.  But  the  world  has  already 
lasted  countless  ages  without  arriving  at  this 
result.  It  cannot  concern  me  individually,  any 
more  than  what  happens  to-day  concerns  the 
extinct  ichthyosaur  or  the  megatherium.  All 
that  is  left  for  me  is  to  "eat  and  drink,  for 
to-morrow  I  die." 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


lOI 


*    ■  • 


i 


If  ^ny  one  thinks  that  this  is  an  exaggerated 
picture  of  the  effects  of  agnostic  evolution  as 
applied  to  man,  I  may  refer  him  to  the  study 
of  Herbert  Spencer's  recent  work  The  Data 
of  EthicSy  which  has  contributed  very  much  to 
open  the  eyes  of  thoughtful  men  to  the  depth 
of  spiritual,  moral,  and  even  social  and  political, 
ruin  into  which  we  shall  drift  under  the  guid- 
ance of  this  philosophy.  In  this  work  the  data 
of  ethics  are  reduced  to  the  one  consideration 
of  what  is  "pleasurable"  to  ourselves  and 
others,  and  it  is  admitted  that  our  ideas  of 
conscience,  duty,  and  even  of  social  obliga- 
tion, are  merely  fictions  of  temporary  use  un- 
til the  time  shall  come  when  what  is  pleasurable 
to  ourselves  shall  coincide  with  what  is  pleas- 
urable to  others ;  and  this  is  to  come,  not  out 
of  the  love  of  God  and  the  influence  of  his 
Spirit,  but  out  of  the  blind  struggle  of  oppos- 
ing interests.  It  has  been  well  said  that  this 
system  of  morals — if  it  can  be  dignified  with 
such  a  name — is  inferior,  logically  and  prac- 
tically, not  only  to  the  "supernatural  ethics" 
which  it  boastfully  professes  to  replace,  but  to 
the  ethics  of  Aristotle  and  Cicero,  and  that  "  it 
will  not  supersede  revelation,  nor  is  it  likely  to 
displace  the  old  data  of  ethics,  whether  Greek, 

9» 


103 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES. 


Roman,  or  English."  Independently  of  its  an- 
tagonism to  theism  and  Christianity,  it  is  fore- 
doomed by  the  common  sense  and  the  right 
feeling  of  even  imperfect  human  nature. 


III. 


EVOLUTION 


AS  TSSTKD  BY 


The  Records  of  the  Rocks. 


LECTURE  III. 

EVOLUTION  AS  TESTED  BY  THE  RECORDS  OF  THE 

ROCKS. 

HAVING  discussed  those  vague  analogies 
and  fanciful  pedigrees  by  which  it  has 
been  attempted  to  drag  the  science  of  Biology 
into  the  service  of  Agnostic  Evolution,  we  may 
now  turn  to  another  science — that  of  the  earth 
— and  inquire  how  far  it  justifies  us  in  affirming 
the  spontaneous  evolution  of  plants  and  ani- 
mals in  the  progress  of  geological  time.  This 
subject  is  one  which  would  require  a  lengthy 
treatise  for  its  full  development,  and  it  cannot 
be  pursued  in  the  most  satisfactory  way  without 
much  previous  knowledge  of  geological  facts 
and  principles,  and  of  the  classification  of  ani- 
mals and  plants.  On  the  present  occasion  it 
must  therefore  be  treated  in  the  most  general 
possible  manner,  and  with  reference  merely  to 
the  results  which  have  been  reached.  There 
is  the  more  excuse  for  this  mode  of  treatment 
that,  in   works  already  published  and  widely 

106 


I06  FACTS  AND  FANCIES 

circulated  *  I  have  endeavored  to  present  its 
details  in  a  popular  form  to  general  readers.     . 

Geological  investigation  has  disclosed  a  great 
series  of  stratified  rocks  composing  the  crust 
of  the  earth,  and  formed  at  successive  times, 
chiefly  by  the  agency  of  water.  These  can 
be  arranged  in  chronological  order;  and,  so 
arranged,  they  constitute  the  physical  monu- 
ments of  the  earth's  history.  We  must  here 
take  for  granted,  on  the  testimony  of  geology, 
that  the  accumulation  of  this  series  of  deposits 
has  extended  over  a  vast  lapse  of  time,  and 
that  the  successive  formations  contain  remains 
of  animals  and  plants  from  which  we  can  learn 
much  as  to  the  succession  of  life  on  the  earth. 
Without  entering  into  geological  details,  it  may 
be  sufficient  to  present  in  tabular  form  (see  p. 
107)  the  grand  series  of  formations,  with  the 
general  history  of  life  as  ascertained  from  them. 

In  the  oldest  rocks  known  to  geologists — 
those  of  the  Eozoic  time — some  indications  of 
the  presence  of  life  are  found.  Great  beds  of 
limestone  are  contained  in  these  formations, 
vast  quantities  of  carbon  in  the  form  of  graph- 
ite, and  thick  beds  of  iron-ore.    All  these  are 

*  Story  of  the  Earthy  Origin  of  the  Worlds  Chain  of  Life  in  Geokg- 
teal  Time. 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


107 


Tabular  View  of  Geological  Periods  and  of  Life-Epochs. 


o 


^ 


\ 


»4 


Gbological  Pbriods. 


I 


Post-Tertiary  f  Recent. 
or  Modtm,  \  Post-Glacial. 


Tertiary 


Pleistocene,  or  Glacial. 

Pliocene. 

Miocene. 

Eocene. 


Cretactout. 


yuraxtic   . 


Triattie 


/Upper, 


Lower,  or  Neocomian. 


r  Oolite. 
•ILiaa. 


\  j£^i,  or  Muschelkalk. 
(Lower. 


Pgymian 


{Middle,  or  Magneaian 
Limestone. 
Lower. 


(Upper  Coai-FormatiOB. 
Goal-Formation. 
Carbouiferous  Limestone. 
Lower  Coal-Formation. 


Erian 

or 
DtvamaH 


("Upper. 

•{  Middle. 

.  (.Lower. 


Age  of  Man 
and  Modern 
Mammal*. 

Age  of  Extinct 

Mammals. 

(Earliest 

Placental 

Mammals.) 


AgtotReptilet 
and  Birds, 


(Eariiest 
Marsupial 
Mammals.) 


saurian    .    •  {i^^JlorSauro-Cambrian 

fUpper. 

Camirian.    .-{Mjddle. 

(.Lower. 


.     Uuroman.    .{^^J; 


Lamrentiem 


f  Upper,  or  Norian. 
.^Middle, 
^Lower,  or  Bojian. 


Animal 

LiFB. 


(Earliest  True 
Reptiles.) 


Age  of 
Amphibians 
ana  Fishes. 


Age  of 

MoTlushs, 

Corals,  and 

Crustaceans. 


Age  of 

ProtoKoa, 

(First  Animal 

Remains.) 


Vbgbtablb 

LiPB. 


Age  of 
Angio^rms 
and  Pat'ms. 


(Earliest 
Modem 
Trees.) 


Age  of 

Cjvaaswad 

Pines. 


Age  of 

Acrogens  and 
Gymnosferms, 


(Earliest 
Land  Plantt.) 
Age  of  Alga. 


Indications  of 

Plants  not 
determinable, 


io8 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES, 


» 

■ 
■ 

known,  from  their  mode  of  occurrence  in  later 
deposits,  to  be  results,  direct  or  indirect,  of  the 
agency  of  life ;  and  if  they  afforded  no  traces 
of  organic  forms,  still  their  chemical  character 
would  convey  a  presumption  of  their  organic 
origin.  But  additional  evidence  has  been  ob- 
tained in  the  presence  of  certain  remarkable 
laminated  forms  penetrated  by  microscopic 
tubes  and  canals,  and  which  are  supposed  to 
b6  the  remains  of  the  calcareous  skeletons  of 
humbly-organized  animals  akin  to  the  simplest 
of  those  now  living  in  the  sea.  Such  animals 
— ^little  more  than  masses  of  living  animal  jelly 
— now  abound  in  the  waters,  and  protect  them- 
selves by  secreting  calcareous  skeletons,  often 
complex  and  beautiful,  and  penetrated  by  pores, 
through  which  the  soft  animal  within  can  send 
forth  minute  thread-like  extensions  of  its  body, 
which  serve  instead  of  limbs.  The  Laurentian 
fossil  known  as  Eozoon  Canadense  (see  Fig.  3) 
may  have  been  the  skeleton  of  such  a  lowly- 
organized  animal ;  and  if  so,  it  is  the  oldest 
living  thing  that  we  know.  But  if  really  the 
skeleton  or  covering  of  such  an  animal,  Eozoon 
is  larger  than  any  of  its  successors,  and  quite 
as  complex  as  any  of  them.  There  is  nothing 
to  show  that  it  could  have  originated  from  dead 


Fig.  3. 


it 

le 
m 

te 

d 


1.  Small  specimen  of  Eozoon  Canadense,  weathered  out  from  the  con* 
taining  rock,  and  showing  its  laminated  structure. 

2.  Casts  of  irregular  or  acervaline  chambers  of  upper  part  (magnified). 

3.  Surface  of  a  cast  of  a  fiat  chamber,  showing  its  constituent  cham- 
berlets  (magnified). 

4.  Section  of  casts  of  flat  chambers  (magnified).     From  the  Lauren- 
tian  of  Canada. 

to  aoQ 


no 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


matter  by  any  spontaneous  action,  any  more 
than  its  modern  representatives  could  do  so. 
There  is  no  evidence  of  its  progress  by  evolu- 
tion into  any  higher  form,  and  the  group  of  an- 
imals to  which  it  belongs  has  continued  to  in- 
habit the  oceari  throughout  geological  time  with- 
out any  perceptible  advance  ia  rank  or  com- 
plexity of  structure.  If,  then,  we  admit  the  an- 
imal nature  of  this  earliest  fossil,  we  can  derive 
from  it  no  evidence  of  monistic  evolution ;  and 
**  if  we  deny  its  animal  nature,  we  are  confronted 
with  a  still  graver  difficulty  in  the  next  succeed- 
ing formations. 

Between  the  rocks  whicu  contain  Eozoon  and 
the  next  in  which  we  find  any  abundant  re- 
mains of  life,  there  is  a  gap  in  geological  history, 
either  destitute  of  evidence  of  4ife  or  showing 
nothing  materially  in  advance  of  Eozoon,  In 
the  Cambrian  Age,  however,  we  obtain  a  vast 
and  varied  accession  of  life.  Here  we  find  evi- 
dence that  the  sea  swarmed  with  living  crea- 
tures near  akin  to  those  which  still  inhabit  it, 
and  nearly  as  varied.  Referring  merely  to 
leading  groups,  we  have  here  the  soft  shell- 
fishes and  the  worms,  the  ordinary  shellfishes, 
the  sea-stars,  and  the  corals,  with  the  sponges. 
In  short,  had  we  been  able  to  drop  our  dredge 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


IE  I 


into  the  Cambrian  or  Lower  Silurian  ocean, 
we  should  have  brought  up  representatives  of 
all  the  leading  types  of  invertebrate  life  that 
exist  in  the  modern  seas^ — different,  it  is  true, 
in  details  of  structure  from  those  now  existing, 
but  constructed  on  the  same  principles  and  fill- 
ing the  same  places  in  nature. 

If  we  inquire  as  to  the  history  of  this  swarm- 
ing marine  life  of  the  early  Palaeozoic,  we  find 
that  its  several  species,  after  enduring  for  a 
longer  or  a  shorter  time,  one  by  one  became 
extinct  and  were  replaced  by  others  belonging 
to  the  same  groups.  Thus  there  is  in  each 
great  group  a  succession  of  new  forms,  distinct 
as  species,  but  not  perceptibly  elevated  in  the 
scale  of  being.  In  many  cases,  indeed,  the  re- 
verse seems  to  be  the  case;  for  it  is  not  un- 
usual to  find  the  successive  dynasties  of  life  in 
any  one  family  manifesting  degradation  rather 
than  elevation.  New,  and  sometimes  higher, 
forms,  it  is  true,  appear  in  the  progress  of  time, 
but  it  is  impossible,  except  by  violent  supposi- 
tions, to  connect  them  genetically  with  any  pre^ 
decessors.  The  succession  throughout  the  Pa- 
laeozoic presents  the  appearance  rather  of  the 
unchanged  persistence  of  each  group  under  a 
succession  of  specific  forms,  and  the  introduc- 


212 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES. 


tion  from  time  to  time  of  new  groups,  as  if  to 
replace  others  which  were  in  process  of  decay 
and  disappearance. 

Ill  the  later  half  of  the  Palaeozoic  we  find  a 
number  of  higher  forms  breaking  upon  us  with 
the  same  apparent  suddenness  as  in  the  case  of 
the  early  Cambrian  animals.  Fishes  appear,  and 
soon  abound  in  a  great  variety  of  species,  rep- 
resenting types  of  no  mean  rank,  but,  singular- 
ly enough,  belonging,  in  many  cases,  to  groups 
now  very  rare ;  while  the  commoner  tribes  of 
modern  fish  do  not  appear.  On  the  land,  ba- 
trachian*  reptiles  now  abound,  some  of  them 
very  high  in  the  sub-class  to  which  they  be- 
long. Scorpions,  spiders,  insects,  and  milli- 
pedes appear,  as  well  as  land-snails,  and  this 
not  in  one  locality  only,  but  over  the  whole 
northern  hemisphere.  At  the  same  time,  the 
land  appears  clothed  with  an  exuberant  vege- 
tation— not  of  the  lowest  types  nor  of  the 
highest,  but  of  intermediate  forms,  such  as 
those  of  the  pines,  the  club-mosses,  and  the 
ferns,  all  of  which  attained  in  those  days  to 
magnitudes  and  numbers  of  species  unsur- 
passed, and  in  some  cases  unequalled,  in  the 
modern  world.  Nor  do  they  show  any  signs 
of   an    unformed   or   imperfect   state.      Their 


Fro,  4. 


Restoration  (by  G,  F.  Matthew)  of  a  TrilobJte  {Pttmdoxides)  from  the 
Lower  Cambrian,  as  an  evidence  of  the  existence  of  crustacean  ani- 
mals of  high  type  and  great  complexity  in  this  early  age.  If  such 
animals  were  evolved  from  Protozoa  by  slow  and  gradual  changes,  the 
time  required  would  be  greater  than  that  which  iaterveneil  fae^een 
the  Gunbrian  period  and  the  present  time. 


10' 


113 


114 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


seeds  and  spores,  their  fruits  and  spore-cases, 
are  as  elaborately  constructed,  the  tissues  and 
forms  of  their  stems  and  leaves  as  delicate  and 
beautiful,  as  in  any  modern  plants.  So  with 
the  compound  eyes  and  filmy  wings  of  insects, 
the  teeth,  bones,  and  scales  of  batrachians  and 
fishes ;  all  are  as  perfectly  finished,  and  many 
quite  as  complex  and  elegant,  as  in  the  animals 
of  the  present  day  (Figure  4). 

This  wonderful  Palaeozoic  Age  was,  however, 
but  a  temporary  state  of  the  earth.  It  passed 
away,  and  was  replaced  by  the  Mesozoic,  em- 
phatically the  reign  of  reptiles,  when  animals 
of  that  type  attained  to  colossal  magnitude,  to 
variety  of  function  and  structure,  to  diversity 
of  habitat  in  sea  and  on  land,  altogether  unex- 
ampled in  their  degraded  descendants  of  mod- 
ern times.  Sea-lizards  of  gigantic  size  swarm- 
ed everywhere  in  the  waters.  On  land,  huge 
quadrupeds,  like  Atlantosaurus  and  Iguanodon 
and  Megalosaurus,  greatly  exceeded  the  ele- 
phants of  later  times ;  while  winged  reptiles — 
some  of  them  of  small  size,  others  with  wings 
twenty  feet  in  expanse — flitted  in  the  air. 
Strangely  enough,  with  these  reptilian  lords 
appeared  a  few  small  and  lowly  mammals, 
forerunners   of   the  coming  age.     Birds  also 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


"5 


make  their  appearance,  and  at  the  close  of 
the  period  forests  of  broad-leaved  trees  alto- 
gether different  from  those  of  the  Palaeozoic 
Age,  and  resembling  those  of  our  modern 
woods,  appear  for  the  first  time  over  great 
portions  of  the  northern  hemisphere. 

The  Cainozoic,  or  Tertiary,  is  the  age  of 
mammals  and  of  man.  In  it  the  great  rep- 
tilian tyrants  of  the  Mesozoic  disappear,  and 
are  replaced  on  land  and  sea  by  mammals  or 
beasts  of  the  same  orders  with  those  now  liv- 
ing, though  differing  as  to  genera  and  species 
(see  Fig.  5).  So  greatly,  indeed,  did  mamma- 
lian life  abound  in  this  period  that  in  the  mid- 
dle part  of  the  Tertiary  most  of  the  leading 
groups  were  represented  by  more  numerous 
species  than  at  present;  while  many  groups 
then  existing  have  now  no  representatives. 
At  the  close  of  this  great  and  wonderful  pro- 
cession of  living  beings  comes  man  himself — 
the  last  and  crowning  triumph  of  creation ;  the 
head,  thus  far,  of  life  on  the  earth. 

I  have  merely  glanced  at  the  leading  events 
of  this  wonderful  history,  because  its  details 
may  be  found  in  so  many  manuals  and  popular 
works  on  geology.  But  if  we  imagine  this 
great  chain  of  life  extending  over  periods  of 


ii6 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES. 


enormous  duration  in  comparison  with  the 
short  span  of  human  history,  presenting  to 
the  naturalist  hosts  of  strange  forms  which  he 
could  scarcely  have  imagined  in  his  dreams,  we 
may  understand  how  exciting  have  been  these 
discoveries  crowded  within  the  lives  of  two 
generations  of  geologists.  Further,  when  we 
consider  that  the  general  course  of  this  great 
development  of  life,  beginning  with  Protozoa 
and  ending  with  man,  is  from  below  upward — 
from  the  more  simple  to  the  more  complex — 
and  that  there  is  of  necessity,  in  this  grand 
growth  of  life  through  the  ages,  a  likeness  or 
parallelism  to  the  growth  of  the  individual  an- 
imal from  its  more  simple  to  its  more  complex 
state,  we  can  understand  how  naturalists  should 
fancy  that  here  they  have  been  introduced  to 
the  workshop  of  Nature,  and  that  they  can 
discover  how  one  creature  may  have  been  de- 
veloped from  another  by  spontaneous  evolu- 
tion. 

Many  naturalists  like  Darwin  and  HaeckeS, 
as  well  as  philosophers  like  Herbert  Spencer, 
are  quite  carried  away  by  this  analogy,  and  ap- 
pear unable  to  perceive  that  it  is  merely  a  gen- 
eral resemblance  between  processes  altogether 
different  in  tiieir  nature,  and  therefore  in  their 


a  g  B  I  ?r 

5    e    »>    £.  2 


5    5-    »* 

JT  §•  I  3- 

'»  "  M  a 
S  3  SS- 

5     '*    S'   3 


&  a  org   S, 

O       n       Mt 


2  J*  « 

§.°  II 

^  fi»  ^  I- 


117 


Il8  yACTS  AND  FANCIES 

causes.  The  greater  part,  however,  of  the 
more  experienced  palaeontologists,  or  students 
of  fossils,  have  long  ago  seen  that  in  the  larger 
field  of  the  earth's  history  there  is  very  much 
that  cannot  be  found  in  the  narrower  field  of 
the  development  of  the  individual  animal ;  and 
they  have  endeavored  to  reduce  the  succession 
of  life  to  such  general  expressions  as  shall  ren- 
der it  more  comprehensible  and  may  at  length 
enable  us  to  arrive  at  explanations  of  il3  com- 
plex phenomena.  Of  these  general  expressions 
or  conclusions  I  may  state  a  few  here,  as  appo- 
site to  our  present  subject,  and  as  showing  how 
little  of  real  support  the  facts  of  the  earth's 
history  give  to  the  pseudo-gnosis  of  monistic 
evolution. 

I.  The  chain  of  life  in  geological  time  pre- 
sents a  wonderful  testimony  to  the  reality  of 
a  beginning.  Just  as  we  know  that  any  indi- 
vidual animal  must  have  had  its  birth,  its 
infancy,  its  maturity,  and  will  reach  an  end 
of  life,  so  we  trace  species  and  groups  of 
species  to  their  beginning,  watch  their  culmi- 
nation, and  perhaps  follow  them  to  their,  ex- 
tinction. It  is  true  that  there  is  a  sense  in 
which  geology  shows  "  no  sign  of  a  beginning, 
no  prospect  of  an  end ;"  but  this  is  manifestly 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE 


119 


because  it  has  reached  only  a  little  way  back 
toward  the  beginning  of  the  earth  as  a  whole, 
and  can  see  in  its  present  state  no  indication 
of  the  time  or  manner  of  the  end.  But  its 
revelation  of  the  fact  that  nearly  all  the  ani- 
mals and  plants  of  the  present  day  had  a  very 
recent  beginning  in  geological  time,  and  its 
disclosure  of  the  disappearance  of  one  form 
of  life  after  another  as  we  go  back  in  time, 
till  we  reach  the  comparatively  few  forms  of 
life  of  the  Lower  Cambrian,  and  finally  have 
to  rest  over  the  solitary  grandeur  of  Eozoon^ 
oblige  it  to  say  that  nothing  known  to  it  is 
self-existent  and  eternal. 

2.  The  geological  record  \  forms  us  that  the 
general  laws  of  nature  have  continued  un- 
changed from  the  earliest  periods  to  which  it 
relates  until  the  present  day.  This  is  the  true 
"  uniformitarianism  "  of  geology  which  holds  to 
the  dominion  of  existing  causes  from  the  first 
But  it  does  not  refuse  to  admit  variations  in  the 
intensity  of  these  causes  from  time  to  time,  and 
cycles  of  activity  and  repose,  like  those  that 
we  see  on  a  small  scale  in  the  seasons,  the 
occurrence  of  storms,  or  the  paroxysms  of 
volcanoes.  When  we  find  that  the  eyes  of 
the  old  trilobites  have  had  lenses  and  tubes 


^ 


1 20  FACTS  AND  FANCIES 

similar  to  those  in  the  eyes  of  modern  crusta- 
ceans, we  have  evidence  of  the  persistence  of 
the  laws  of  light.  When  we  see  the  structures 
of  Palaeozoic  leaves  identical  with  those  of  our 
modern  forests,  we  know  that  the  arrange- 
ments of  the  soil,  the  atmosphere,  and  the 
rain  were  the  same  at  thai  ancient  time  as 
at  present.  Yet,  with  all  this,  we  also  find 
evidence  that  long-continued  periods  of  physi- 
cal quiescence  were  followed  by  great  crum- 
plings  and  foldings  of  the  earth's  crust,  and 
we  know  that  this  also  is  consistent  with  the 
operation  of  law;  for  it  often  happens  that 
causes  long  and  quietly  operating  prepare 
for  changes  which  may  be  regarded  as  sud- 
den and  cataclysmic. 

3.  Throughout  the  geological  history  there 
is  progress  toward  greater  complexity  and 
higher  grade,  along  with  degradation  and  ex- 
tinction. Though  experience  shows  that  it 
may  be  quite  possible  that  new  discoveries 
may  enable  us  to  trace  some  of  the  higher 
forms  of  life  farther  back  than  we  now  find 
them,  yet  there  can  be  no  question  that  in  the 
progress  of  geological  time  lower  types  have 
given  place  to  higher;  less  specialized  to  more 
specialized.      Curiously   enough,   no  evidence 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE.  121 

proves  this  more  clearly  than  that  which  re- 
lates to  the  degradation  of  old  forms.  When, 
for  example,  the  reptiles  of  the  Mesozoic  Age 
were  the  lords  of  creation,  there  was  appar- 
ently no  place  for  the  larger  Mammalia  which 
appear  at  the  close  of  the  reptile  dynasty.  So 
in  the  Palaeozoic,  when  trees  of  the  cryp- 
togamous  type  predominated,  there  seems  to 
have  been  no  room  in  nature  for  the  forests 
of  modern  type  which  succeeded  them.  Thus 
the  earth  at  every  period  was  fully  peopled 
with  living  beings — at  first  with  low  and  gen- 
eralized structures  which  attained  their  maxima 
at  early  stages  and  then  declined,  and  after- 
ward with  higher  forms  which  took  the  places 
of  those  that  were  passing  away.  These  latter, 
again,  though  their  dominion  was  taken  from 
them,  were  continued  in  lower  positions  under 
the  new  dynasties.  Thus  none  of  the  lower 
types  of  life  introduced  was  finally  abandoned, 
but,  after  culminating  in  the  highest  forms  of 
which  it  was  capable,  each  was  still  continued, 
though  with  fewer  species  and  a  lower  place. 
Examples  of  this  abound  in  the  history  of  all 
the  leading  groups  of  animals  and  plants. 

4.  There  is  thus  a  continued  plan  and  order 
in  the  history  of  Hfe  which  cannot  be  fortuitous. 
11 


122 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES. 


The  chance  interaction  of  organisms  and  their 
environment,  even  if  we  assume  the  organisms 
and  environment  as  given  o  us,  could  never 
produce  an  orderly  continuous  progress  of  the 
utmost  complexity  in  its  detail,  and  extending 
through  an  enormous  lapse  of  time.  It  has 
been  well  said  that  if  a  pair  of  dice  were  to 
turn  up  aces  a  hundred  times  in  succession, 
any  reasonable  spectator  would  conclude  that 
they  were  loaded  dice ;  so  if  countless  millions 
of  atoms  and  thousands  of  species,  each  in- 
cluding within  itself  most  complex  arrange- 
ment of  parts,  turn  up  in  geological  time  in 
perfectly  regular  order  and  a  continued  grada- 
tion of  progress,  something  more  than  chance 
must  be  implied.  It  is  to  be  observed  here 
that  every  species  of  animal  or  plant,  of  how- 
ever low  grade,  consists  of  many  co-ordinated 
parts  in  a  condition  of  the  nicest  equilibrium. 
Any  change  occurring  which  produces  unequal 
or  disproportionate  development,  as  the  ex- 
perience of  breeders  of  abnormal  varieties  of 
animals  and  plants  abundantly  proves,  imperils 
the  continued  existence  of  the  species.  Changes 
must,  therefore,  in  order  to  be  profitable,  affect 
the  parts  of  the  organism  simultaneously  and 
symmetrically.     The  chances  of  this  may  well 


Fio.  6. 


Group  of  Plants  (restored)  from  the  Devonian  period,  illustrating 
the  complexity  and  beauty  of  the  earliest  known  land  vegetation, 
though  many  of  the  leading  forms  of  modern  plants  are  unknown  in 
this  very  ancient  period. 


sn 


124  FACTS  AND  FANCIES 

be  compared  to  the  casting  of  aces  a  hundred 
times  in  succession,  and  are  so  infinitely  small 
as  to  be  incredible  under  any  other  supposition 
than  that  of  intelligent  design. 

5.  The  progress  of  life  in  geological  time. 
Just  as  the  growth  of  trees  is  promoted  or 
arrested  by  the  vicissitudes  of  summer  and 
winter,  so  in  the  course  of  the  geological  his- 
tory there  have  been  periods  of  pause  and  ac- 
celeration in  the  work  of  advancement.  This 
is  in  accordance  with  the  general  analogy  of 
the  operations  of  nature,  and  is  in  no  way  at 
variance  with  the  doctrine  of  uniformity  already 
referred  to.  Nor  has  it  anything  in  common 
with  the  unfounded  idea,  at  one  time  enter- 
tained, of  successive  periods  of  entire  destruc- 
tion and  restoration  of  life.  Prolific  periods 
of  this  kind  appear  in  the  marine  invertebrates 
of  the  early  Cambrian,  the  plants  (Figure  6) 
and  fishes  of  the  Devonian,  the  batrachians  of 
the  Carboniferous,  the  reptiles  of  the  Trias,  the 
broad-leaved  trees  of  the  Cretaceous,  and  the 
mammals  of  the  early  Tertiary.  A  remarkable 
contrast  is  afforded  by  the  later  Tertiary  and 
modern  time,  in  which,  with  the  exception  of 
man  himself,  and  perhaps  a  very  few  other 
species,  no  new  forms  of  life  have  been  intro- 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


125 


duced,  while  many  old  forms  have  perished. 
This  is  somewhat  unfortunate,  since,  in  such 
a  period  of  stagnation  as  that  in  which  we 
live,  we  can  scarcely  hope  to  witness  either 
the  creation  or  the  evolution  of  a  new  species. 
Evolutionists  themselves — those,  at  least,  who 
are  willing  to  allow  their  theory  to  be  at  all 
modified  by  facts — now  perceive  this ;  and 
hence  we  have  the  doctrine,  advanced  by 
Mivart,  Le  Conte,  and  others,  of  "critical 
periods,"  or  periods  of  rapid  evolution  alter- 
nating with  others  of  greater  quiescence.  It 
is  further  to  be  observed  here  that  in  a  limited 
way  and  with  reference  to  certain  forms  of 
life  we  can  see  a  reason  for  these  intermittent  . 
creatipns.  The  greater  part  of  the  marine 
fossils  known  to  us  are  from  rocks  now  raised 
up  in  our  continents,  and  they  lived  at  periods 
when  the  continents  were  submerged.  Now, 
in  geological  time  these  periods  of  submer- 
gence alternated  with  others  of  elevation  ;  and 
it  is  manifest  that  each  period  of  continental 
submergence  gave  scop'e  for  the  introduction 
of  numbers  of  new  marine  species,  while  each 
continental  elevation,  on  the  other  hand,  gave 
opportunity  for  the  increase  of  land-life,  fur- 
ther, periods  when  a  warm  climate  prevailed- 
ii« 


126  FACTS  AND  FANCIES 

in  the  arctic  regions — periods  when  plants 
such  as  now  live  in  temperate  regions  could  ^ 

enjoy   six   months   of    continuous    sunshine — '  I 

were  eminently  favorable  to  the  development 
of  such  plants,  and  were  utilized  for  the  intro- 
duction of  new  floras,  which  subsequently 
spread  to  the  southward.  Thus  we  see  phys- 
ical changes  occurring  in  an  orderly  succes- 
sion and  made  subservient  to  the  progress  of 
life. 

6.  There  is  no  direct  evidence  that  in  the 
course  of  geological  time  one -species  has  been 
gradually  or  suddenly  changed  into  another. 
Of  the  latter  we  could  scarcely  expect  to  find 
any  evidence  in  fossils ;  but  of  the  former,  if  it 
had  occurred,  we  might  expect  to  find  indica- 
tions in  the  history  of  some  of  the  numerous 
species  which  have  been  traced  through  succes- 
sive geological  formations.  Species  which  thus 
continue  for  a  great  length  of  time  usually  pre- 
sent numerous  varietal  forms  which  have  some- 
times been  described  as  new  species ;  but  when 
carefully  scrutinized  they  are  found  to  be  mere- 
ly local  and  temporary,  and  to  pass  into  each 
other.  On  the  other  hand,  we  constantly  find 
species  replaced  by  others  entirely  new,  and 
this  without  any  transition.     The  two  classes 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE.  12/ 

of  facts  are  essentially  -different ;  and  though  it 
is  possible  to  point  out  in  the  newer  geological 
formations  some  genera  and  species  allied  to 
others  which  have  preceded  them,  and  to  sup- 
pose that  the  later  forms  proceeded  from  the 
earlier,  still,  when  the  connecting-links  cannot 
be  found,  this  is  mere  supposition,  not  scientific 
certainty.  Further,  it  proceeds  on  the  principle 
of  arbitrary  choice  of  certain  forms  out  of  many 
without  any  evidence  of  genetic  connection. 
The  worthlessness  of  such  derivation  is  well 
shown  in  a  ».  ise  which  has  often  been  paraded 
as  an  illustration  of  evolution — ♦■he  supposed 
genealogy  of  the  horse.  In  America  a  series 
of  horse-like  animals  has  been  selected,  begin- 
ning with  the  Orohippus  of  the  Eocene,  and 
these  have  been  marshalled  as  the  ancestors  of 
the  fossil  horses  of  America ;  for  there  are  no 
native  horses  in  America  in  the  modern  period. 
Yet  this  is  purely  arbitrary, and  dependent  mere- 
ly on  a  succession  of  genera  more  and  more 
closely  resembling  the  modern  horse  being  pro- 
curable from  successive  Tertiary  deposits,  often 
widely  separated  in  time  and  place.  In  Europe, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  ancestry  of  the  horse 
has  been  traced  back  to  PalcBotheriuin — an  en- 
tirely different  form — by  just  as  likely  indica- 


128 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


tions.  Both  genealogies  can  scarcely  be  true, 
and  there  is  no  actual  proof  of  either.  The 
existing  American  horses,  which  are  of  European 
parentage,  are,  according  to  the  theory,  descend- 
ants of  PalcBotherium,  not  of  Orohippus ;  but 
if  we  had  not  known  this  on  historical  evidence, 
there  would  have  been  nothing  to  prevent  us 
from  tracing  them  to  the  latter  animal.  This 
simple  consideration  alone  is  sufficient  to  show 
that  such  genealogies  are  not  of  the  nature  of 
scientific  evidence. 

It  is  further  to  be  observed  that  some  of  the 
ablest  palaeontologists,  and  those  who  have  en- 
joyed the  largest  opportunities  of  observation 
and  comparison,  attach  no  value  whatever  to 
theories  of  evolution  as  accounting  for  the 
origin  of  species.  One  of  these  is  Joachim 
Barrande,  the  palaeontologist  of  Bohemia,  and 
the  first  authority  in  Europe  on  the  fossils  of 
the  older  formations.  Barrande,  like  some 
other  eminent  palaeontologists,  has  the  misfor- 
tune to  be  an  unbeliever  in  the  modern  gospel 
of  evolution,  but  he  has  certainly  labored  to 
overcome  his  doubts  with  greater  assiduity  than 
even  many  of  the  apostles  of  the  new  doctrine ; 
and  if  he  is  not  convinced,  the  stubbornness  of 
the  facts  he  has  had  to  deal  with  must  bear  the 


I'!!!! 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


129 


blame.  In  connection  with  his  great  and  class- 
ical work  on  the  Silurian  fossils  of  Bohemia,  it 
has  been  necessary  for  him  to  study  the  similar 
remains  of  every  other  country ;  and  he  has 
used  this  immense  mass  of  material  in  prepar- 
ing statistics  of  the  population  of  the  Palaeozoic 
world  more  perfect  than  any  other  naturalist 
has  been  able  to  produce.  In  successive  me- 
moirs he  has  applied  these  statistical  results  to 
the  elucidation  of  the  history  of  the  oldest  group 
of  crustaceans — the  trilobites — and  the  highest 
group  of  the  mollusks — the  cephalopods.  In 
his  latest  memoir  of  this  kind  he  takes  up  the 
brachiopods,  or  lamp-shells,  a  group  of  bivalve 
shellfishes  very  ancient  and  very  abundantly 
represented  in  all  the  older  formations  of  every 
part  of  the  world,  and  which  thus  affords  the 
most  ample  material  for  tracing  its  evolution, 
with  the  least  possible  difficulty  in  the  nature 
of  "imperfection  of  the  record." 

Barrande,  in  the  publication  before  us,  dis- 
cusses the  brachiopods  with  reference,  first,  to 
the  variations  observed  within  the  limits  of  the 
species,  eliminating  in  this  way  mere  synonyms 
and  varieties  mistaken  for  species.  He  also 
arrives  at  various  important  conclusions  with 
reference  to  the  origin  of  species  and  varietal 


I30 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


forms,  which  apply  to  the  cephalopods  and 
trilobites  as  well  as  to  the  brachiopods,  and 
some  of  which,  as  the  writer  has  elsewhere 
shown,  apply  very  generally  to  fossil  animals 
and  plants.  One  of  these  is  that  different  con- 
temporaneous species,  living  under  the  same 
conditions,  exhibit  very  different  degrees  of 
vitality  and  variability.  Another  is  the  sud- 
den appearance  at  certain  horizons  of  a  great 
number  of  species,  each  manifesting  its  com- 
plete specific  characters.  With  very  rare  ex- 
ceptions, also,  varietal  forms  are  contempo- 
raneous with  the  normal  form  of  their  specific 
type,  and  occur  in  the  same  localities.  Only 
in  a  very  few  cases  do  they  survive  it.  This 
and  the  previous  results,  as  well  as  the  fact  that 
parallel  changes  go  on  in  groups  having  no 
direct  reaction  on  each  other,  prove  that  vari- 
ation is  not  a  progressive  influence,  and  that 
specific  distinctions  are  not  dependent  on  it, 
but  on  the  "  sovereign  action  of  one  and  the 
same  creative  cause,"  as  Barrande  expresses 
'  it.  These  conclusions,  it  may  be  observed,  are 
not  arrived  at  by  that  "  slap-dash  "  method  of 
mere  assertion  so  often  followed  on  the  other 
side  of  tliese  questions,  but  by  the  most  severe 
and  painstaking    induction,  and   with  careful 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE.  I3I 

elaboration  of  a  few  apparent  exceptions  and 
doubtful  cases. 

His  second  heading  relates  to  the  distribu- 
tion in  time  of  the  genera  and  species  of 
brachiopods.  This  he  illustrates  with  a  series 
of  elabprate  tables,  accompanied  by  explana- 
tion. He  then  proceeds  to  consider  the  animal 
population  of  each  formation,  in  so  far  as 
brachiopods,  cephalopods,  and  trilobites  are 
concerhed,  with  reference  to  the  following 
questions:  (j)  How  many  species  are  con- 
tinued from  the  previous  formation  unchanged? 
(2)  How  many  may  be  regarded  as  modifica- 
tions of  previous  species  ?  (3)  How  many  are 
migrants  from  other  regions  where  they  have 
been  known  to  exist  previously  ?  (4)  How 
many  are  absolutely  new  species?  These 
questions  are  applied  to  each  of  fourteen  suc- 
cessive formations  included  in  the  Silurian  of 
Bohemia.  The  total  number  of  species  of 
brachiopods  in  these  formations  is  six  hundred 
and  forty,  giving  an  average  of  45.71  to  each, 
and  the  results  of  accurate  study  of  each 
species  in  its  characters,  its  varieties,  its  geo- 
graphical and  geological  range,  are  expressed 
in  the  following  short  statement,  which  should 
somewhat  astonish  those   gentiemen  who  are 


132  FACTS  AND  FANCIES 

SO  fond  of  asserting  that  derivation  is  "  demon- 
strated "  by  geological  facts  : 

1.  Species  continued  unchanged 28  per  cent. 

2.  Species  migrated  from  abroad 7        '• 

3.  Species  continued  with  modiiication o       " 

4.  New  species  without  known  ancestors....  65       " 

100  per  cant. 

He  shows  that  the  same  or  very  similar  pro- 
portions hold  with  respect  to  the  cephalopods 
and  trilobites,  and,  in  fact,  that  the  proportion 
of  species  in  the  successive  Silurian  faunae 
which  can  be  attributed  to  descent  with  mod- 
ification is  absolutely  nil.  He  may  well  remark 
that  in  the  face  of  such  facts  the  origin  of 
species  is  not  explained  by  what  he  terms  les 
Hans  poitiques  de  r imagination. 

The  third  part  of  Barrande's  memoir,  relat- 
ing to  the  comparison  of  the  Silurian  brachio- 
pods  of  Bohemia  with  those  of  other  countries, 
though  of  great  scientific  interest,  and  import- 
ant in  extending  the  conclusions  of  his  previous 
chapters,  does  not  so  nearly  concern  our  pres- 
ent subject. 

I  have  thought  it  well  to  direct  attention  to 
these  memoirs  of  Barrande,  because  they  form 
a  specimen  of  conscientious  work  with  the 
view  of  ascertaining  if  there  is  any  basis  in 


r 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE.  1 33 

nature  for  the  doctrine  of  spontaneous  evolu- 
tion of  species,  and,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  a 
striking  contrast  to  the  mixture  of  fact  and 
fancy  on  this  subject  which  too  often  passes 
current  for  science  in  England,  America,  and 
Germany.  Barrande's  studies  are  also  well 
deserving  th^^^  attention  of  our  younger  men  of 
science,  as  they  have  before  them,  more  espe- 
cially in  the  widely-spread  Palaeozoic  formations 
of  America,  an  admirable  field  for  similar  work. 
In  an  appendix  to  his  first  chapter  Barrande 
mentions  that  the  three  men  who  in  their 
respective  countries  are  the  highest  authorities 
on  Palaeozoic  brachiopods.  Hall,  Davidson,  and 
De  Konirick,  agree  with  him  in  the  main  in  his 
conclusions,  and  he  refers  to  an  able  memoir 
by  D'Archiac  in  the  same  sense,  on  the  cre- 
taceous brachiopods. 

It  should  be  especially  satisfactory  to  those 
naturalists  who,  like  the  writer,  had  failed  to 
ses  in  the  palaeontological  record  any  good 
evidence  for  the  production  of  species  by 
those  simple  and  ready  methods  in  vogue 
with  most  evolutionists,  to  note  the  extension 
of  actual  facts  with  respect  to  the  geological 
dates  and  precise  conditions  of  the  introduc- 
tion of  new  forms,  and  to  find  that  these  are 
12 


134 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


more  and  more  tending  to  prove  the  existence 
of  highly  complex  creative  laws  in  connection 
with  the  great  plan  of  the  Creator  as  carried 
out  in  geological  time.  These  new  facts  should 
also  warn  the  ordinary  reader  of  the  danger 
of  receiving  without  due  caution  those  general 
and  often  boastful  assertions  respecting  these 
great  and  intricate  questions  made  by  persons 
not  acquainted  with  their  actual  difificu^'y,  or  by 
enthusiastic  speculators  disposed  to  overlook 
everything  not  in  accordance  with  their  pre- 
conceived ideas. 

It  may  be  asked,  Is  there,  then,  no  place  in 
the  geological  record  even  for  theistic  evolu- 
tion? This  it  would  be  rash  to  affirm.  We 
can  only  say  that  up  to  this  time  there  is  no 
proof  of  it.  If  nature  has  followed  this  meth- 
od, she  seems  carefully  to  have  concealed  the 
process.  If  such  changes  have  occurred  as  to 
evolve  from  a  species,  say  of  mollusk  or  coral, 
belonging  to  one  geological  period  some  form 
found  in  another  period,  and  recognized  as  a 
distinct  species,  we  have  to  suppose  that  the 
capacity  for  such  change  was  in  some  way  im- 
planted in  the  species  on  its  creation,  and  ready 
to  be  developed  under  favorable  conditions  or 
in  the  lapse  of  time.     For  example,  we  may 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


135 


suppose  that  a  plant  originating  in  the  long  arc- 
tic summers  of  a  warm  period  might,  on  migrat- 
ing southward  into  the  alternations  of  day  and 
night,  undergo  material  changes.  A  marine 
animal  long  confined  to  a  limited  sea-basin 
might,  on  being  permitted  to  expand  over  a 
wide  submerged  continent,  be  greatly  modified 
in  its  structure  and  habits.  Up  to  a  certain 
point  we  know  that  such  changes  have  oc- 
curred, and  Barrande  himself  has  largely  illus- 
trated them.  As  an  example  which  I  have  my- 
self studied,  I  may  refer  to  the  common  shells 
known  on  our  coasts  as  sand-clams  (My a  trun- 
cata  and  Mya  arenaria).  The  former  species, 
in  the  cold  waters  of  the  Glacial  Age,  assumed 
a  short  form  which  it  still  retains  in  the  arctic 
regions,  and  occasionally  in  the  colder  waters 
of  the  more  temperate  regions,  though  there  a 
more  elongated  form  prevails.  Evidently  the 
two  forms  are  interchangeable  according  to  the 
temperature  of  the  water.  Still,  if  we  could 
imagine  a  permanent  refrigeration  over  all  the 
area  pccupied  by  the  animal,  the  short  form 
only  might  survive,  and  might  be  supposed  to 
be  a  distinct  species.  This  did  not  occur,  how- 
ever, even  in  the  Glacial  Age,  and  is  not  likely 
to  occur.     Further,  the  allied,  though  quite  dis- 


mM^ 


136  FACTS  AND  FANCIES. 

tinct,  Species  Mya  arenaria  has  lived  with  the 
other  through  all  the  long  duration  of  the  Post- 
Pliocene  and  modern  periods,  and,  though  hav- 
ing its  own  range  of  varietal  forms,  has  pre- 
served its  distinctness.  Cases  of  this  kind  are 
obviously  of  the  nature  of  varietal,  not  specific, 
change. 

In  conclusion,  the  whole  of  the  facts  and  laws 
above  detailed  point  to  a  predetermined  plan 
and  to  an  intelligent  Creator,  of  whose  laws 
and  modes  of  procedure  we  may  learn  much 
by  patient  and  careful  study.  This  surely  gives 
a  great  additional  interest  to  that  marvellous 
story  of  the  earth  which  in  these  last  days  has 
been  revealed  to  us  by  the  study  of  the  rocks. 
We  may  also  infer  that  not  ^ne  method  only 
but  many  have  been  employed  in  replenishing 
the  earth  at  first  with  living  beings,  and  in  add- 
ing to  these  from  time  to  time.  To  what  ex- 
tent we  may  be  able  to  understand  these,  time 
and  future  discoveries  will  show.  In  the  mean 
time,  we  can  only  suggest  such  general  theories 
as  those  referred  to  in  the  first  of  these  lec- 
tures, but  can  affirm  that  Agnostic  Evolution  is 
altogether  abortive  in  its  attempts  to  solve  t^e 
problem  of  the  chain  of  life  in  geological  time. 


i 


IV. 


The  Origin  and  Antiquity  of  Man. 


li* 


. 


LECTURE    IV. 


I 


THE  ORIGIN  AND  ANTIQUITY  OF  MAN. 

MAN,  when  regarded  merely  as  an  organ- 
ism, is  closely  related  to  the  lower  an- 
imals. His  body  is  constructed  on  the  same 
general  plan  with  theirs.  More  especially,  he 
is  near  akin  to  the  other  members  of  the  class 
Mammalia.  But  we  must  not  forget  that  even 
as  an  animal  man  is  somewhat  widely  separated 
from  his  humbler  relations  (see  Fig.  7).  It  is 
easy  to  say  that  every  bone,  every  muscle,  every 
convolution  of  his  brain,  has  its  counterpart  in 
the  corresponding  parts  of  an  orang  or  a  go- 
rilla. But,  admitting  this,  it  is  also  true  that 
every  one  of  these  parts  is  different,  and  that 
the  aggregate  of  all  the  differences  mounts  up 
to  an  enormous  sum-total,  more  especially  in 
relation  to  habits  and  to  capacities  for  ac- 
tion. Those  remarkable  homologies  or  like- 
nesses of  plan  which  obtain  in  the  animal  king- 
dom are  very  wonderful,  and  the  study  of  them 
greatly  enlarges  our  conceptions  of  the  unity 

1X0 


V 


7 


140 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES. 


m 


of  nature  ;  but  we  must  never  forget  that  such 
general  agreements  in  plan  cover  the  most  pro- 
found differences  in  detail  and  in  adaptation 
to  use,  and  that,  while  they  indicate  a  common 
type,  this  may  rather  point  to  a  unity  of  design 
than  to  a  mere  accidental  unity  of  descent. 

There  is  a  method,  well  known  to  natural 
science,  for  measuring  and  indicating  the  di- 
vergence of  man  from  his, nearest  allies.  This 
is  the  application  of  those  principles  of  classifi- 
cation which,  though  of  essential  importance  in 
science,  are  by  some  modern  students  of  nature 
strangely  overlooked  or  misunderstood.  Per- 
haps in  nothing  has  the  progress  of  ideas  of 
evolution  made  a  more  injurious  impress  on 
the  advance  of  knowledge  than  in  the  manner 
in  which  it  has  caused  many  eminent  and  able 
naturalists  to  diverge  from  all  logical  propriety 
in  their  ideas  of  classification.  Still,  in  so  far 
as  man  is  concerned,  there  are  some  facts  of 
this  kind  which  are  indisputable.  He  certainly 
constitutes  a  distinct  species,  including  many 
races,  which  all,  however,  have  common  specific 
characters.  On  the  other  hand,  no  one  pre- 
tends that  he  is  conspecific  with  any  lower  an- 
imal. All  naturalists  would  now  deride  the 
stories,  at  one  time  current,  that  gorillas  and 


' 


J 


Fig.  7. 


Man  and  his  "poor  relation,"  the  gorilla.     (Afi,r  Huxl^  \     Th. 
head  of  the  gorilla,  with  immense  jaws  and  smallSlin^sf^^s  hl^e 

?o™s  stfllt^^^^       T  ""'"•  '"^  '"^^  "^'^^^^'^  °^  -"^y  intermediate 
torms,  stiU  unknown,  to  connect  the  two  species. 


»4» 


142 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


chimpanzees  are  degraded  races  of  men.  On 
the  other  hand^  even  Haeckel  admits  that,  there 
is  a  wide  gap,  unfilled  by  any  recent  or  any  fos- 
sil creature,  between  man  and  the  highest  apes. 
Again,  no  generic  relationship  can  be  claimed 
as  between  man  and  the  lower  animals.  He 
presents  such  structural  differences  as  entitle 
him  to  rank  by  himself  in  the  genus  Homo, 
Still  further,  the  ablest  naturalists,  before  the 
rise  of  Darwinism,  held  that  man  was  entitled 
to  be  placed  in  a  separate  family  or  order  from 
the  apes.  Modern  evolutionists  prefer  to  fall 
back  on  the  old  arrangement  of  Linnaeus,  and 
to  place  man  and  apes  together  in  the  group 
of  Primates,  which,  however,  Linnaeus  would 
not  have  regarded  as  precisely  of  the  same 
value  with  an  order  as  now  held.  In  this  those 
of  them  who  have  sufficient  ability  to  compre- 
hend the  facts  of  the  case  are  undoubtedly 
warped  in  judgment  by  the  tendency  of  their 
philosophy  to  magnify  resemblances  and  to 
minimize  differences ;  while  the  herd  of  feebler 
men  have  their  ideas  of  classification  thorough- 
ly confused  by  the  doctrine  which  they  have 
received  as  a  creed  dictated  by  authority,  and 
to  which  they  adhere  under  the  influence  of 
fear.     In  point  of  fact,  the  differences  between 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


143 


man  and  any  other  animal  are  so  wide  that  they 
warrant  a  distinction,  not  merely  specific  and 
generic,  but  of  a  family  and  an  ordinal  cha- 
racter. 

Perhaps  the  best  way  to  appreciate  this  will 
be  to  suppose  that  man  has  become  extinct, 
and  that  in  some  future  geological  period  his 
fossil  remains  are  studied  by  some  new  race  of 
intelligent  beings,  and  compared  with  those  of 
the  lower  animals  his  contemporaries.  Let  us 
suppose  that  they  have  disinterred  a  human 
skull  or  the  bones  of  a  human  foot.  From  the 
foot  they  would  learn  that  man  is  not  an  arbo- 
real animal,  but  intended  to  walk  erect  on  the 
ground.  They  could  infer  from  this  certain 
structures  and  uses  of  the  vertebral  column 
and  of  the  anterior  limbs  different  from  those 
found  in  apes,  and  which  would  certainly  induce 
them  to  conclude  that  they  had  obtained  re- 
mains indicating  a  new  order  of  mammals.  If 
they  had  found  the  foot  alone,  they  might  doubt 
whether  the  possessor  of  this  strange  and  high- 
ly-specialized organ  had  been  carnivorous  or 
herbivorous,  more  nearly  allied  to  the  bears  or 
to  the  monkeys.  Should  they  now  find  the 
skull,  these  doubts  would  be  solved,  and  they 
would  know  that  the  new  animal  was  some- 


144 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


what  nearer  to  the  apes  than  to  the  bears,  but 
still  at  a  very  remote  distance  from  them,  and 
this  indicated  by  peculiarities  of  brain-case,  jaws, 
and  teeth,  proving  divergences  in  function  still 
wider  than  those  apparent  in  the  structures. 
They  would  also  plainly  perceive  that  to  link 
man  with  his  nearest  mammalian' allies  would 
require  the  discovery  of  several  missing  links. 
When  we  consider  the  psychological  endow- 
ments of  man,  his  divergence  from  lower 
animals  becomes  immensely  greater.  In  his 
external  senses  and  in  the  perceptions  derived 
through  them  it  is  true  he  resembles  the  brutes. 
There  is  also  much  in  common  with  them  in 
his  appetites  and  emotions,  and  in  some  of  the 
lower  manifestations  of  intelligence.  But  he 
adds  to  this  a  higher  reason,  which  causes  his 
actions  to  be  differently  determined  from  theirs ; 
and  this  higher  reason,  or  spiritual  nature,  leads 
him  to  abstract  ideas,  to  consciousness,  to 
notions  of  right  and  of  wrong,  to  ideas  of 
higher  spiritual  beings  and  of  futurity  alto- 
gether unknown  to  lower  animals.  This  divine 
reason,  in  connection  with  special  vocal  con- 
trivances, also  bestows  on  him  the  gift  of 
speech.  Nor  can  speech  be  reduced  to  a 
mere  imitation  of  natural  sounds ;  for,  grant- 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


MS 


ing  that  these  sounds  may  be  the  raw  material 
of  speech,  yet  man  is  enabled  to  apply  this  to 
the  expression  of  ideas  in  a  manner  altogether 
peculiar  to  himself.  Scientific  precision  obliges 
us  to  i  ecognize  these  differences,  and  to  admit 
that  they  place  man  on  an  entirely  different 
plane  from  tfte  lower  animals. 

Perhaps  the  expression  "a  different  plane  " 
is  scarcely  correct,  for  man  can  exist  on  many 
different  planes — a  fact  which  has  produced 
some  confusion  in  the  minds  of  naturalists 
not  versed  in  psychological  questions,  though, 
when  rightly  considered,  it  marks  very  strongly 
the  distinction  between  the  man  and  the  viere 
animal. 

The  lower  animals  are  tied  up  by  Invariable 
instincts  to  certain  lines  of  action  which  keep 
all  the  individuals  of  any  species  on  nearly  the 
same  level,  except  where  some  little  disturb- 
ance may  be  caused  by  man  in  his  processes 
of  domestication.  But  with  man  it  is  quite 
different.  He  is  emancipated  from  the  bond 
of  instinct,  and  left  free  to  follow  the  guidance 
of  his  own  will,  determined  by  his  own  reason. 
It  follows  that  the  habits  and  the  actions  of 
a  man  depend  on  what  he  knows  and  believes, 
and  on  the  deductions  of  his  reason  from  these 

13 


146 


FACTS  AND   FANCIES 


premises.  Without  knowledge,  culture,  and 
training,  man  is  more  helpless  than  any  brute. 
With  the  noblest  and  highest  capacities,  he 
may  devise  and  follow  habits  of  life  more  base 
than  those  of  any  mere  animal.  Thus  there 
is  an  almost  immeasurable  difference  between 
the  Godlike  height  to  which  man  can  attain  by 
the  right  use  of  his  powers  and  the  depth  to 
which  ignorance  and  depravity  may  degrade 
him.  It  follows  that  the  degradation  of  the 
lower  races  of  men  is  as  strong  a  proof  of 
the  difference  between  man  and  the  lower 
animals  as  is  the  elevation  of  the  higher  races. 
Both  are  characteristic  of  a  being  emancipated 
from  the  control  of  instinct,  knowing  good  and 
evil,  free  to  choose,  and  differing  in  these 
respects  from  every  other  creature  on  earth. 
Such  is  man  as  we  find  him ;  and  we  may 
well  ask  by  what  process  animal  instinct  could 
ever  spontaneously  develop  human  freedom  and 
human  reason. 

But  we  might  have  evidence  of  such  a  pro- 
cess, however  strange  and  improbable  it  might 
at  first  sight  appear.  We  might  be  able  to 
trace  man  back  in  history  or  by  prehistoric 
remains  to  greater  and  greater  approximation 
to   the  lower  animals,  and  might  thus  bridge 


■f* 


IN  MODERI^  SCIENCE. 


H7 


over  the  great  chasm  now  existing  between 
man  and  beast.  It  may  be  instructive,  there- 
fore, to  glance  at  what  geology  discloses  as  to 
the  origin  of  man  and  his  first  appearance  on 
the  earth. 

In  the  older  geological  formations  no  remains 
of  man  or  of  "his  works  have  been  found.  Nor 
do  we  expect  to  find  them,  for  none  of  the 
animals  more  nearly  related  to  man  then  ex- 
isted, and  the  condition  of  the  earth  was  proba- 
bly not  suited  to  them.  Nor  do  we  find  human 
remains  even  in  the  earlier  Tertiary.  Here 
also  we  do  not  expect  them,  for  the  Mammalia 
of  those  times  were  all  specifically  distinct  from 
those  of  the  modern  world.  It  is  only  in  the 
Pliocene  period  that  we  begin  to  find  modern 
species  of  mammals.  Here,  therefore,  we  may 
look  for  human  remains ;  but  we  do  not  find 
them  as  yet,  and  it  is  only  at  the  close  of  the 
Pliocene,  or  even  after  the  succeeding  Glacial 
period,  that  we  find  undoubted  traces  of  man. 
Let  us  glance  at  the  significance  of  this. 

Mammalian  life  probably  culminated  or  at- 
tained to  its  maximum  in  the  Miocene  and  the 
early  Pliocene  periods.  Then  there  were  more 
numerous,  larger,  and  better-developed  quadru- 
peds on  our  continents  than  we  now  find.     For 


r^ 


148 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


example,  the  elephants,  the  noblest  of  the 
mammals,  are  at  present  represented  by' two 
species  confined  to  India  and  parts  of  Africa.* 
In  the  Middle  Tertiary  there  were,  in  addition 
to  the  ordinary  elephants,  two  other  genera. 
Mastodon  and  Dinotherium,  and  there  were 
many  species  which  were  distributed  over  the 
whole  northern  hemisphere.  The  sub- Hima- 
layan deposits  of  India  alone  have,  I  believe, 
afforded  seven  species,  some  of  them  of 
grander  dimensions  than  either  of  those  now 
existing.  We  have  no  trustworthy  evidence 
as  yet  that  man  lived  at  this  period.  If  he  had, 
he  either  would  have  required  the  protection 
of  a  special  Eden,  or  would  have  needed  su- 
perhuman strength  and  sagacity. 

But  the  grand  mammalian  life  of  the  Middle 
Tertiary  was  destined  to  die  out.  At  the  close 
of  the  Pliocene  came  an  age  of  refrigeration, 
when  arctic  cold  crept  down  over  our  conti- 
nents far  to  the  south,  and  when  most  of  the 
animals  suited  to  ten.perate  climates  were 
either  frozen  out  or  driven  southward.  During, 
'^r  closing,  this  period  was  also  a  great  sub- 
mergence of  the  continents,  which  must  have 

*  The  Ceylon  elephant  is  by  some  believed  to  be  distinct,  but  is 
probably  a  variety  of  the  Indian  species. 


I^  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


149 


)se 


iti- 


tere 


been  equally  destructive  to  mammalian  life, 
and  •which  extended  over  both  Eurasia  and 
America  till  the  summits  of  some  of  the  high- 
est hills  were  under  water.  Attempts  have 
been  made  to  show  that  man  existed  before 
or  during  the  Glacial  Age,  but  this  is  very 
unlikely,  and,  as  I  have  elsewhere  argued,  the 
evidence  adduced  to  prove  so  great  antiquity 
of  man,  whether  in  America  or  Europe,  has 
altogether  broken  down.* 

At  the  close  of  the  Glacial  period  the  conti- 
nents re-emerged  and  became  more  extensive 
than  at  present.  Survivors  of  the  Pliocene 
species,  as  well  as  other  species  not  previously 
known,  spread  themselves  over  this  new  land. 
It  would  appear  that  it  was  in  this  "  Post- 
Glacial "  period  that  man  made  his  appear- 
ance, and  that  he  was  then  contemporary  with 
many  large  animals  now  extinct,  and  was  the 
possessor  of  wider  continental  areas  than  his 
descendants  now  enjoy.  To  this  age  belong 
those  human  bones  and  implements  found  in 
the  older  cave  and  gravel  deposits  of  Europe, 
and  which  are  referred  to  those  palaeolithic  or 
palaeocosmic  ages  which  preceded  the  dawn  of 
history  in   Europe  and   the  arrival  therein  of 

*  Fossil  Men  (London,  1880),  Appendix. 
18* 


iir" 


150 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES, 


the  present  European  races.  The  occupation 
of  Europe,  and  probably  of  Western  Asia,  by 
these  oldest  tribes  of  men  was  closed  by  a 
subsidence  or  submergence  at  the  end  of  that 
"second  continental  period,"  as  it  has  been 
called  by  Lyell,*  in  which  they  lived.  When 
the  land  was  restored  to  its  present  condition, 
they  were  replaced  by  the  ancestors  of  the 
present  European  races. 

It  may  be  well  here  to  tabulate  that  later  por- 
tion of  the  earth's  geological  history  in  which 
man  appeared,  more  especially  as  it  is  some- 
times arranged  in  a  manner  not  suited  to  con- 
vey a  correct  impression  of  the  actual  succes- 
sion. It  will  be  seen  by  the  general  table  given 
in  the  last  lecture  that  the  latest  of  the  Tertiary 
ages  is  that  known  as  the  Pleistocene  or  Post- 
Pliocene,  and  this,  with  the  succeeding  modern 
period,  may  be  best  arranged  as  follows : 

I.  Pleistocene,  including —    ' 

{a)  Early  Pleistocene,  or  First  Continental  Period.  Land  very 
extensive,  moderate  climate. 

[b)  Later  Pleistocene,  or  Glacial  (including  Dawkins'  "  Mid- 
Pleistocene  ").  In  this  there  was  a  great  prevalence  of  cold  and 
glacial  conditions,  and  a  great  submergence  of  the  northern  land. 

II.  Modern,  or  Period  of  Man  and  Modem  Mammals,  includ- 
ing— 

[a)  Post- Glacial,  or  Second  Continental  Period,  in  which  thfc 

*  The  first  continental  period  was  that  of  the  earlier  f  liocepe. 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


151 


land  was  again  very  extensive,  and  palseocosmic  man  was  con- 
temporary with  some  great  mammals — as  the  mammoth,  now 
extinct — and  the  area  of  land  in  the  northern  hemisphere  was 
greater  than  at  present.  (This  represents  the  Late  Pleistocene  of 
Dawkins.)  It  was  terminated  by  a  great  and  very  general  sub- 
sidence, accompanied  by  the  disappearance  of  palseocosmic  man 
and  some  large  Mammalia,  and  which  may  be  identical  with  tlie 
historical  deluge,* 

{b)  Recent,  when  the  continents  attained  their  present  levels, 
existing  races  of  men  colonized  Europe,  and  living  species  of 
mammals.  This  includes  both  the  Prehistoric  and  the  Historic 
Period. 


Mid- 

Dld  and 

•n  land. 

includ- 


The  palaeocosmic  men  of  the  above  table  are 
the  oldest  certainly  known  to  us,  and  it  has  been 
truly  said  of  them  that  they  are  so  closely  re- 
lated to  modern  races  that,  on  any  hypothesis 
of  gradual  evolution,  we  must  look  for  the 
transition  from  apes  to  men  not  merely  in  the 
Eocene  Tertiary,  but  even  in  the  Mesozoic — that 
is,  in  formations  vastly  older  than  any  containing' 
any  remains  so  far  as  known  either  of  man  or 
of  apes.  That  these  most  ancient  men  were  in 
truth  most  truly  human,  and  that  they  presented 
no  transition  to  lower  animals,  will  appear  from 
the  following  notices,  which  I  condense  from  a 
work  of  my  own  in  which  these  subjects  are 
more  fully  treated : 

* 

*  The  precise  date  in  years  assignable  to  this  event  geology  cannot 
determine ;  but  I  have  elsewhere  shown  that  the  actual  antiquity  of  the 
palseocosmic  or  antediluvian  man  has  been  greatly  exaggerated. 


152 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


The  beautiful  work  of  Lartet  and  Christy 
has  vividly  portrayed  to  us  the  antiquities  of 
the  limestone  plateau  of  the  Dordogne — the 
ancient  Aquitania — remains  which  recall  to  us 
a  population  of  Horites,  or  cave-dwellers,  of  a 
time  anterior  to  the  dawn  of  history  in  France, 
living  much  like  the  modern  hunter-tribes  of 
America,  and,  as  already  stated,  possibly  con- 
temporary— in  their  early  history,  at  least — 
with  the  mammoth  and  its  extinct  companions 
of  the  later  Post- Pliocene  forests.  We  have  al- 
ready noticed  the  arts  and  implements  of  these 
people,  but  what  manner  of  people  were  they 
in  themselves  ?  The  answer  is  given  to  us  by 
the  skeletons  found  in  the  cave  of  Cro-ma- 
gnon.  This  cavern  is  a  shelter  or  hollow  under 
an  overhanging  ledge  of  limestone,  and  exca- 
vated originally  by  the  action  of  the  weather 
on  a  softer  bed.  It  fronts  the  south-west  and 
the  little  river  Vezere  ;  and,  having  originally 
been  about  eight  feet  high  and  nearly  twenty 
deep,  must  have  formed  a  cosey  shelter  from 
rain  or  cold  or  summer  sun,  and  with  a  pleas- 
ant outlook  from  its  front.  All  rude  races  have 
much  sagacity  in  making  selections  of  this  sort. 
Being  nearly  fifty  feet  wide,  it  was  capacious 
enough  to  accommodate  several  families,  and 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


153 


when  in  use  it  no  doubt  had  trees  or  shrubs  in 
front,  and  may  have  been  further  completed  by 
stones,  poles,  or  bark  placed  across  the  open- 
ing. It  seems,  however,  in  the  first  instance  to 
have  been  used  only  at  intervals,  and  to  have 
been  left  vacant  fcu^  cohsic  '  le  portions  of 
time.  Perhaps  it  was  visited  only  by  hunting- 
or  war-parties.  But  subsequently  it  was  per- 
manently occupied,  and  this  for  so  long  a  time 
that  in  some  places  ashes  and  carbonaceous 
matter  a  foot  and  a  half  deep,  with  bones,  im- 
plements, etc.,  were  accumulated.  By  this  time 
the  height  of  the  cavern  had  been  much  dimin- 
ished, and,  instead  of  clearing  it  out  for  future 
use,  it  was  made  a  place  of  burial,  in  which  four 
or  five  individuals  were  interred.  Of  these, 
two  were  men,  one  of  great  age,  the  other 
probably  in  the  prime  of  life.  A  third  was  a 
woman  of  about  thirty  or  forty  years  of  age. 
The  other  remains  were  too  fragmentary  to 
give  very  certain  results. 

These  bones,  with  others  to  be  mentioned 
n  connection  with  them,  unquestionably  belong 
to  the  oldest  human  inhabitants  known  in  West- 
ern Europe.  They  have  been  most  carefully  ex- 
amined by  several  competent  anatomists  and 
archaeologists,  and  the  results  have  been  pub- 


154 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


lished  with  excellent  figures  in  the  Reliquice 
AquitafiiccB.  They  are,  therefore,  of  the  ut- 
most interest  for  our  present  purpose,  and  I 
shall  try  s  to  divest  the  descriptions  of  ana- 
tomical details  as  to  give  a  clear  notion  of  their 
character.  The  '  Old  M^n  of  Cro-magnon  * 
was  of  great  stature,  being  nearly  six  feet 
high.  More  than  this,  his  bones  show  that  he 
was  of  the  strongest  and  most  athletic  muscu- 
lar development — a  Samson  in  strength ;  and 
the  bones  of  the  limbs  have  the  peculiar  form 
which  is  characteristic  of  athletic  men  habit- 
uated to  rough  walking,  climbing,  and  running, 
for  this  is,  I  believe,  the  real  meaning  of  the 
enormous  strength  of  the  thigh-bone  and  the 
flattened  condition  of  the  leg  in  this  and  other 
old  skeletons.  It  occurs  to  some  extent,  though 
much  less  than  in  this  old  man,  in  American 
skeletons.  His  skull  presents  all  the  charac- 
ters of  advanced  age,  though  the  teeth  had 
been  worn  down  to  the  sockets  without  being 
lost ;  which,  again,  is  the  character  of  some, 
though  not  of  all,  aged  Indian  skulls.  The 
skull  proper,  or  brain-case,  is  very  long — more 
so  than  in  ordinary  modern  skulls — and  this 
length  is  accompanied  with  a  great  breadth; 
so  that  the  brain  was  of  greater  size  than  in 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE, 


155 


average  modern  men,  and  the  frontal  region 
was  largely  and  well  developed.  In  this  respect 
this  most  ancient  skull  fails  utterly  to  vindicate 
the  expectations  of  those  who  would  regard 
prehistoric  men  as  approaching  to  the  apes. 
It  is  at  the  opposite  extreme.  The  face,  how- 
ever, presented  very  peculiar  characters.  It 
was  extremely  broad,  with  projecting  cheek- 
bones and  heavy  jaw,  in  this  resembling  the 
coarse  types  of  the  American  face,  and  the 
eye-orbits  were  square  and  elongated  laterally. 
The  nose  was  large  and  prominent,  and  the 
jaws  projected  somewhat  forward.  This  man, 
therefore,  had,  as  to  his  features,  some  resem- 
blance to  the  harsher  type  of  American  physi- 
ognomy, with  overhanging  brows,  small  and 
transverse  eyes,  high  cheek-bones,  and  coarse 
mouth.  He  had  not  lived  to  so  great  an  age 
without  some  rubs,  for  his  thigh-bone  showed  a 
depression  which  must  have  resulted  from  a 
severe  wound — perhaps  from  the  horn  of  some 
wild  animal  or  the  spear  of  an  enemy. 

The  woman  presented  similar  characters  of 
stature  and  cranial  form  modified  by  her  sex, 
and  must  in  form  and  visage  have  been  a  ver- 
itable squaw,  who,  if  her  hair  and  complexion 
were  suitable,  would  have  passed  at  once  for  an 


,l^>>i** 


156 


FACTS  AND   FANCIES 


American  Indian  woman,  of  unusual  size  and 
development.  Her  head  bears  sad  testimony  to 
the  violence  of  her  age  and  people.  She  died 
from  the  effects  of  a  blow  from  a  stone-headed 
pogamogan  or  spear,  which  has  penetrated  the 
right  side  of  the  forehead  with  so  clean  a  frac- 
ture as  to  indicate  the  extreme  rapidity  and 
force  of  its  blow.  It  is  inferred  from  the  con- 
dition of  the  edges  of  this  wound  that  she  may 
have  survived  its  infliction  for  two  weeks  or 
more.  If,  as  is  most  likely,  the  wound  was  re- 
ceived in  some  sudden  attack  by  a  hostile  tribe, 
they  must  have  been  driven  off  or  have  retired, 
leaving  the  wounded  woman  in  the  hands  of  her 
friends  to  be  tended  for  a  time,  and  then  buried, . 
either  with  other  members  of  her  family  or  with 
others  who  had  perished  in  the  same  skirmish. 
Unless  the  wound  was  inflicted  in  sleep,  during 
a  night-attack,  she  must  have  fallen,  not  in 
flight,  but  with  her  face  to  the  foe,  perhaps 
aiding  the  resistance  of  her  friends  or  shielding 
her  little  ones  from  destruction.  With  the  peo- 
ple of  Cro-magnon,  as  with  the  American  In- 
dians, the  care  of  the  wounded  was  probably  a 
sacred  duty,  not  to  be  neglected  without  incur- 
ring the  greatest  disgrace  and  the  vengeance 
of  the  guardian  spirits  of  the  sufferers. 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


157 


and 

y  to 

died 

tded 
the 

frac- 
and 

con- 

;  may 

is  or 

IS  rc- 

tribe, 

-tired, 

of  her 

uried,  • 

r  with 
mish. 

during 
ot   in 
rhaps 
elding 
e  peo- 
an  In- 
ably  a 
incur- 
geance 


r 


The  skulls  of  these  people  have  been  com- 
pared to  those  of  the  modern  Esthonians  or 
Lithuanians ;  but  on  the  authority  of  M.  Qua- 
trefages  it  is  stated  that,  while  this  applies  to 
the  probably  later  race  of  small  men  found  in 
some  of  the  Belgian  caves,  it  does  not  apply  so 
well  to  the  people  of  Cro-magnon.  Are,  then, 
these  people  the  types  of  any  ancient,  or  of  the 
most  ancient,  European  race  ?  One  answer  is 
given  by  the  remarkable  skeleton  of  Mentone, 
in  the  South  of  France,  found  under  circum- 
stances equally  suggestive  of  great  antiquity 
(Figure  8).  Dr.  Riviere,  in  a  memoir  on  this 
skeleton  illustrated  by  two  beautiful  photo- 
graphs, shows  that  the  characters  of  the  skull 
and  of  the  bones  of  the  limbs  are  precisely 
similar  to  those  of  the  Cro-magnon  skeleton, 
indicating  a  perfect  identity  of  race,  while  the 
objects  found  with  the  skeleton  are  similar  in 
character. 

The  ornaments  of  Cro-magnon  were  per- 
fr  ated  shells  from  the  Atlantic  and  pieces  of 
ivory.  Those  at  Mentone  were  perforated  Ner- 
itinae  from  the  Mediterranean  and  canine-teeth 
of  the  deer.  In  both  cases  there  was  evidence 
that  these  ancient  people  painted  themselves 
with  red  oxide  of  iron ;  and,  as  if  to  complete 

14 


. -rn. 


i5§ 


FACTS  AND   FANCIES. 


the  similarity,  the  Mentone  man  had  an  old 
healed-up  fracture  of  the  radius  of  the  left  arm, 
the  effect  of  a  violent  blow  or  of  a  fall.  Skulls 
found  at  Clichy  and  Crenelle  in  1868  and  1869 
are  described  by  Professor  Broca  and  Mr.  Fleu- 
rens  as  of  the  same  general  type,  and  the  re- 
mains found  at  Gibraltar  and  in  the  cave  of 
Paviland,  in  England,  seem  also  to  have  be- 
longed to  the  same  race.  The  celebrated  En- 
gis  skull,  believed  to  have  belonged  to  a  con- 
temporary of  the  mammoth,  is  also  precisely  of 
the  same  type,  though  less  massive  than  that  of 
Cro-magnon ;  and,  lastly,  even  the  somewhat 
degraded  Neanderthal  skull,  found  in  a  cave 
near  Dusseldorf,  though,  like  that  of  Clichy,  in- 
ferior in  frontal  development,  is  referable  to  the 
same  peculiar  long-headed  style  of  man,  in  so 
far  as  can  be  judged  from  the  portion  that  re- 
mains. 

Let  it  be  observed,  then,  that  these  skulls 
are  probably  the  oldest  known  in  the  world, 
and  they  are  all  referable  to  one  race  of  men ; 
and  let  us  ask  what  they  tell  as  to  the  posi- 
tion and  character  of  palaeolithic  man.  The  tes- 
timony is  here  fortunately  wellnigh  unanimous. 
Huxley,  who  well  compares  some  of  the  pecu- 
liar features  of  these  ancient  skulls  and  skele- 


Fir..  8. 


old 
rm, 
ulls 

869 
leu- 

re- 
i  of 

be- 

En- 

con- 
lyof 
lat  of 
swhat 

cave 

ly,  ii^- 
to  the 

in  so 
at  re- 
skulls 
world, 

men; 

posi- 

fhe  tes- 

limous. 

pecu- 

skele- 


Portion  of  the  skeleton  of  the  fossil  man  of  Mentone.  Thi!>  akeleton 
was  discovered  by  Dr.  Riviere  under  about  twenty  feet  of  accumulated 
d6bris.  It  belongs  to  the  palaeocosmic  age,  and  illustrates  the  high 
type,  physically,  of  the  man  of  that  period.  The  skeleton,  like  others 
of  that  age,  indicates  a  man  of  great  stature  and  muscular  vigor,  and 
with  brain  above  the  average  size.    [After  Riviire.)  , 


159 


i6o 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


tons  to  those  of  i\ustralians  and  other  rude 
tribes,  and  of  the  ancient  Danes  of  Borroby — 
a  people  not  improbably  allied  to  the  Estho- 
nians  and  Fins — remarks  that  the  manner  in 
which  the  individual  heads  of  the  most  homoge- 
neous rude  races  differ  from  each  other  "  in  the 
same  characters,  though  perhaps  not  to  the  same 
extent  with  the  Engis  and  Neanderthal  skulls, 
seems  to  prohibit  any  cautious  reasoner  from 
affirming  the  latter  to  have  necessarily  been  of 
distinct  races."  My  own  experience  in  Amer- 
ican skulls,  and  the  still  larger  experience  of  Dr. 
Wilson,  fully  confirm  the  wisdom  of  this  caution. 
.  .  .  He  adds  :  "Finally,  the  comparatively  large 
cranial  capacity  of  the  Neanderthal  skull,  over- 
laid though  it  may  be  by  pithecoid,  bony  walls, 
and  the  completely  human  proportions  of  the  ac- 
companying limb-bones,  together  with  the  very 
fair  development  of  the  Engis  skull,  clearly  in- 
dicate that  the  first  traces  of  the  primordial 
stock  whence  man  has  been  derived  need  no 
longer  be  sought  by  those  who  entertain  any 
form  of  the  doctrine  of  progressive  develop- 
ment in  the  newest  Tertiaries,  but  that  they  may 
be  looked  for  in  an  epoch  more  distant  from 
that  of  the  Elephas  primigenius  than  that  is 
from  us."    If  he  had  possessed  the  Cro-magnon 


n      3 


3 


cr  «»  g. 

•-I 
n 

P       m       g 

'^   p    S   2 

^^1 


ft 
in     o 

i     ■       - 


(T   in 
n    • 
v> 


n 


n     a 
§    &  3    K- 

B     B     P     ?N 


•a    o 

ft     D 


C      P  vi* 

^  o-  O 

'^     tn  < 

?  a 


i  ^  S 


5'  S 


^ 


^    ">     s 

I.  B  I 


3-2 


Sop 

ft     3   ffq     CL 

ft    p    ^  _, 

O      ft       ^'  "r1 


ft     rt 

ft 

ft 


ft 

O^ 

K 

ft 

i/i 


«•     ST* 


^ 


5 


a 


ft 
ft  a 


3" 


lil'i'i 


Wl 


r-ii 


'.«'. 


11 


NO 


sex 


l62 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


and  Mentone  skulls  at  the  time  when  this  was 
written,  he  might  well  have  said  immeasurably 
distant  from  the  time  of  the  Elephas  primige- 
nius.  Professor  Broca,  who  seems  by  no  means 
disinclined  to  favor  a  simian  origin  for  men, 
has  the  following  general  conclusions,  which 
refer  to  the  Cro-magnon  skulls :  "The  great  vol- 
ume of  the  brain,  the  development  of  the  fron- 
tal region,  the  fine  elliptical  profile  of  the  an- 
terior portion  of  the  skull,  and  the  orthogna- 
thous  form  of  the  upper  facial  region,  are  incon- 
testably  evidence  of  superiority  which  are  met 
with  usually  only  in  the  civilized  races.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  great  breadth  of  face,  the  alve- 
olar prognathism,  the  enormous  development 
of  the  ascending  ramus  of  the  lower  jaw,  the 
extent  and  roughness  of  the  muscular  inser- 
tions, especially  of  the  masticatory  muscles, 
give  rise  to  the  idea  of  a  violent  and  brutal 


race. 


»> 


He  adds  that  this  apparent  antithesis,  seen 
also  In  ^he  limbs  as  well  as  in  the  skull,  accords 
with  the  evidence  furnished  by  the  associated 
weapons  and  implements  of  a  rude  hunter- 
life,  and  at  the  same  time  of  no  mean  degree 
of  tciste  and  skill  in  carving  and  other  arts 
(see   Fig.   9).      He    might   have    added    that 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


163 


this  is  precisely  the  antithesis  seen  in  the 
American  tribes,  among  whom  art  and  taste 
of  various  kinds,  and  much  that  is  high  and 
spiritual  even  in  thought,  coexisted  with  bar- 
barous modes  of  life  and  intense  ferocity  and 
cruelty.  The  god  and  the  devil  were  com- 
bined in  these  races,  but  there  was  nothing 
of  the  mere  brute. 

Riviere  remarks,  with  expressions  of  sur- 
prise, the  same  contradictory  points  in  the 
Mentone  skeleton.  Its  grand  development 
of  brain-case  and  high  facial  angle — even 
higher,  apparently,  than  in  most  of  these 
ancient  skulls — combined  with  other  charac- 
ters which  indicate  a  low  type  and  barbarous 
modes  of  life. 

Another  point  which  strikes  us  in  reading 
the  descriptions,  and  which  deserves  the  atten- 
tion of  those  who  have  access  to  the  skeletons, 
is  the  indication  which  they  seem  to  present 
of  an  extreme  longevity.  The  massive  pro- 
portions of  the  body,  the  great  development 
of  the  muscular  processes,  the  extreme  wear- 
ing of  the  teeth  among  a  people  who  pre- 
dominantly lived  on  flesh  and  not  on  grain, 
the  obliteration  of  the  sutures  of  the  skull, 
along  with  indications  of  slow  ossification  of 


164 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


the  ends  of  the  long  bones,  point  in  this  direc- 
tion, and  seem  to  indicate  a  slow  maturity  and 
great  length  of  life  in  this  most  primitive  race. 
The  picture  would  be  incomplete  did  we 
not  add  that  in  France  and  Belgium,  in  the 
immediately  succeeding  or  reindeer  age,  these 
gigantic  and  magnificent  men  seem  to  have 
been  superseded  by  a  feebler  race  of  smaller 
stature  and  with  shorter  heads ;  so  that  we 
have,  even  in  these  oldest  days,  the  same  con- 
trasts so  plainly  perceptible  in  the  races  of  the 
North  of  Europe  and  the  North  of  America  in 
historical  times  (Figure  10). 

It  is  -further  significant  that  there  are  some 
indications  to  show  that  the  larger  and  nobler 
race  was  that  which  inhabited  Eu-ope  at  the 
time  of  its  greatest  elevation  above  the  sea 
and  greatest  horizontal  extent,  and  when  its 
fauna  included  many  large  quadrupeds  now 
extinct.  This  race  of  giants  was  thus  in  the 
possession  of  a  greater  continental  area  than 
that  now  existing,  and  had  to  contend  with 
gigantic  brute  rivals  for  the  possession  of  the 
world.  It  is  also  not  improbable  that  this 
early  race  became  extinct  in  Europe  in  con- 
sequence of  the  physical  changes  which  oc- 
curred in  connection  with  the  subsidence  which 


ome 
)bler 
the 
sea 
its 
now 
the 
than 
with 
f  the 
this 
con- 
h  oc- 
which 


Section  of  the  cave  of  Frontal,  in  Belgium.  {Afier  Dupont.)  a, 
limestone ;  b,  deposit  of  mud  of  the  mammoth  age,  on  which  rests  a 
bed  of  gravel,  c,  and  above  this  there  was,  in  modern  times,  a  mass  of 
fallen  d6bris,  d,  up  to  the  dotted  line.  Oi  removing  this,  a  hearth  was 
found  at  e,  on  which  were  numerous  bones  of  motlern  animals,  the 
remains  of  funeral  feasts.  The  cave  was  closed  with  i  flat  stone,  and 
within  were  skeletons,  stone  implements,  ornaments,  and  pottery  of  the 
"neolithic"  age.  Under  these  was  undisturbed  earth  of  the  palae- 
olithic, or  mammoth  age.  The  facts  show  the  succession,  in  Belgium, 
of  palseocosmic  or  antediluvian  men  and  of  neocosmic  men  allied  to 
the  Basques  or  to  the  Laps,  and  all  this  previous  to  the  advent  of  the 
modem  races. 


i6S 


1 66 


FACTS  AND   FANCIES. 


reduced  the  land  to  Its  present  limits,  and  that 
the  dwarfish  race  which  succeeded  came  in  as 
the  appropriate  accompaniment  of  a  diminished 
land-surface  and  a  less  genial  climate  in  the 
early  modern  period.  Both  of  these  races 
are  properly  palaeolithic,  and  are  supposed  to 
antedate  the  period  of  polished  stone ;  but 
this  may,  to  a  great  extent,  be  a  prejudice  of 
collectors,  who  have  arrived  at  a  foregone 
conclusion  as  to  the  distinctness  of  these 
periods  (Figure  ii).  Judging  from  the  great 
cranial  capacity  of  the  older  race  and  the  small 
number  of  their  skeletons  found,  it  would  be 
fair  to  suppose  that  they  represent  rude  out- 
lying tribes  belonging  to  races  which  elsewhere 
had  attained  to  greater  culture.  ' 

Lastly,  both  of  these  old  European  races 
were  Turanian,  Mongolian,  or  American  in 
their  head-forms  and  features,  as  well  as  In 
their  habhs.  Implements,  and  arts.  To  illustrate 
this,  In  so  far  as  the  older  of  the  two  races  Is 
concerned,  I  have  carefully  compared  collec- 
tions of  American  Indian  skulls  with  casts 
and  figures  representing  the  form  and  di- 
mensions of  some  of  the  oldest  European 
crania  above  referred  to.  Some  of  the 
American     skulls     may    fairly    be    compared 


'..r  :      -» 


%' 


Fig.  h. 


Flint  arrowheads  found  together  in  a  modem  Indian  deposit  in 
Canada,  and  showing  the  coincidence  in  time  of  rude  and  finished 
flint  weapons,  or  that  among  all  savages  using  chipped  flint,  the  palaeo- 
lithic and  neolithic  ages  are  contemporaneous. 


i68 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES. 


in  their  characters  with  the  Mentone  skull, 
and  others  with  those  of  Cro-magnon,  En- 
gis,  and  Neanderthal ;  and  so  like  are  some 
of  the  Huron,  Iroquois,  and  other  northern 
American  skulls  to  these  ancient  European 
relics  and  others  of  their  type,  that  it  would 
be  difficult  to  affirm  that  they  might  not  have 
belonged  to  near  relatives.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  smaller  and  shorter  heads  of  the 
race  of  the  reindeer  age  in  Europe  may  be 
compared  with  the  Laps,  and  with  some  of  the 
more  delicately  formed  Algonquin  and  Chippe- 
wayan  skulls  in  America.  If,  therefore,  the 
reader  desires  to  realize  the  probable  aspect 
of  the  men  of  Cro-magnon,  of  Mentone,  or 
of  Engis,  I  may  refer  him  to  modern 
American  heads.  So  permanent  is  this  great 
Turanian  race,  out  of  which  all  the  other 
races  now  extant  seem  to  have  been  developed, 
in  the  milder  and  more  hospitable  regions  of 
the  Old  World,  while  in  northern  Asia  and  in 
America  it  has  retained  to  this  day  its  primitive 
characters. 

The  reader,  reflecting  on  what  he  has 
learned  from  history,  may  be  disposed  here 
to  ask,  Must  we  suppose  Adam  to  have  been 
one  of  these  Turanian  men,  like  old  men  of 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


169, 


all, 

Ln- 

me 

ern 

ean 

)uld 

lave 

ither 
the 

y  be 

f  the 

ippe- 

;,  the 

spect 

le,  or 

odern 
great 
other 
loped, 
ns  of 
nd  in 
mitive 

le   has 

here 

been 

len  of 


Cro-magnon  ?  In  answer,  I  would  say  that 
there  is  no  good  reason  to  regard  the  first 
man  as  having  resembled  a  Greek  Apollo  or 
an  Adonis.  He  was  probably  of  sterner  and 
more  muscular  mould.  But  the  gigantic  palaeo- 
lithic men  of  the  European  caves  are  more 
probably  representatives  of  that  fearful  and 
powerful  race  who  filled  the  antediluvian  world 
widi  violence,  and  who  reappear  in  postdiluvian 
times  as  the  Anakim  and  traditional  giants,  who 
constitute  a  feature  in  the  early  history  of  so 
many  countries.  Perhaps  nothing  is  more 
curious  in  the  rev,elations  as  to  the  most 
ancient  cave-men  than  that  they  confirm  the 
old  belief  that  there  were  'giants  in  those 
days.' 

And  now  let  us  pause  for  a  moment  to 
picture  these  so-called  palaeolithic  men.  What 
could  the  old  man  of  Cro-magnon  have  told 
us  had  we  been  able  to  sit  by  his  hearth  and 
listen  understandingly  to  his  speech? — which, 
if  we  may  judge  from  the  form  of  his  palate- 
bones,  must  have  resembled  more  that  of  the 
Americans  or  Mongolians  than  of  any  modern 
European  people.  He  had,  no  doubt,  travelled 
far,  for  to  his  stalwart  limbs  a  long  journey 
through  forests  and  -^^'er  plains  and  mountains 

16 


Ill  II 


_i;o 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


would  be  a  mere  pastime.  He  may  have 
bestridden  the  wild  horse,  which  seems  to 
have  abounded  at  the  time  in  France,  and 
he  may  have  launched  his  canoe  on  the  waters 
of  the  Atlantic.  His  experience  and  memory 
might  extend  back  a  century  or  more,  and  his 
traditional  lore  might  go  back  to  the  times  of 
the  first  mother  of  our  race.  Did  he  live  in 
that  wide  Post- Pliocene  continent  which  ex- 
tended westward  through  Ireland  ?  Did  he 
know  and  had  he  visited  the  nations  that  lived 
in  the  valley  of  the  great  Gihon,  that  ran  down 
the  Mediterranean  Valley,  or  on  that  nameless 
river  which  flowed  through  the  Dover  Straits  ? 
Had  he  visited  or  seen  from  afar  the  great 
island  Atlantis,  whose  inhabitants  could  almost 
see  in  the  sunset  sky  the  islands  of  the  blest  ? 
Or  did  he  live  at  a  later  time,  after  the  Post- 
Pliocene  subsidence,  and  when  the  land  had 
assumed  its  present  form?  In  that  case  he 
could  have  told  us  of  the  great  deluge,  of  the 
huge  animals  of  the  antediluvian  world — known 
to  him  only  by  tradition — and  of  the  diminished 
strength  and  longevity  of  men  in  his  compar- 
atively modern  days.  We  can  but  conjecture 
all  this.  But,  mute  though  they  may  be  as  to 
the   details   of   their   lives,    the   man   of    Cro- 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


171 


to 

nd 

srs 

3ry 

his 
of 

i  in 
ex- 
he 

ived 

[own 

eless 

aits? 

yreat 

most 
lest? 
Post- 
had 
se  he 
)f  the 
nown 

lushed 
mpar- 
ecture 
\  as  to 
Cro- 


magnon  and  his  contemporaries  are  eloquent 
of  one  great  truth,  in  which  they  coincide  with 
the  Americans  and  with  the  primitive  men  of 
'  all  the  early  ages.  They  tell  us  that  primitive 
man  had  the  same  high  cerebral  organization 
which  he  possesses  now,  and,  we  may  infer,, 
the  same  high  intellectual  and  moral  nature, 
fitting  him  for  communion  with  God  and  head- 
ship over  the  lower  world.  They  indicate, 
also,  like  the  Mound-builders,  who  preceded 
the  North  American  Indian,  that  man's  earlier 
state  was  the  best — that  he  had  been  a  high 
and  noble  creature  before  he  became  a  savage. 
It  is  not  conceivable  that  their  high  develop- 
ment of  brain  and  mind  could  have  sponta- 
neously engrafted  itself  on  a  mere  brutal  and 
savage  life.  These  gifts  must  be  remnants 
of  a  noble  organization  degraded  by  mgral 
evil.  They  thus  justify  the  tradition  of  a 
Golden  and  Edenic  Age,  and  mutely  protest 
against  the  philosophy  of  progressive  develop- 
ment as  applied  to  man,  while  they  bear  wit- 
ness to  the  identity  in  all  important  characters 
of  the  oldest  prehistoric  men  with  that  variety 
of  our  species  which  is  at  the  present  day  at 
once  the  most  widely  extended  and  the  most 
primitive  in  its  manners  and  usages. 


1/2 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


Thus  it  would  appear  that  these  earliest 
known  men  are  not  specifically  distinct  from 
ourselves,  but  are  a  distinct  race,  most  nearly 
allied  to  that  great  Turanian  stock  which  is  at 
the  present  day,  and  has  apparently  from  the 
earliest  historic  times  been,  the  most  widely 
spread  of  all.  Though  rude  and  uncultured, 
they  were  not  either  physically  or  mentally 
inferior  to  the  average  men  of  to-day,  and 
were  indeed  in  several  respects  men  of  high 
type,  whose  great  cranial  capacity  might  lead 
us  to  suppose  that  their  ancestors  had  recently 
been  in  a  higher  state  of  civilization  than  them- 
selves. It  is,  however,  possible  that  this  cha- 
racteristic was  rather  connected  with  great 
energy  and  physical  development  than  with 
high  mental  activity. 

To  the  hypothesis  of  evolution,  as  applied 
to  man,  these  facts  evidently  oppose  great 
difficulties.  They  show  that  such  modern 
degraded  races  as  the  Fuegians  or  the  Tas- 
manians  cannot  present  to  us  the  types  of  our 
earlier  ancestors,  since  the  latter  were  men 
of  a  different  and  higher  style.  Nor  do 
these  oldest  known  men  present  any  approx- 
imation in  physical  characters  to  the  lower 
animals.     Further,   we   may   infer   from   their 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE, 


173 


works,  and  from  what  we  know  of  their  beliefs 
and  habits,  that'  they  were  not  creatures  of 
instinct,  but  of  thought  Hke  ourselves,  and 
that  materialistic  doctrines  of  automatism  and 
brain-force  without  mind  would  be  quite  as 
absurd  in  their  application  to  them  as  to  their 
modern  representatives. 

It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that,  in  presence 
of  these  facts,  the  spontaneous  origin  of  man 
from  inferior  animals  cannot  be  held  as  a 
scientific  conclusion.  It  may  be  an  article 
of  faith  in  authority,  or  a  superstition  or  an 
hypothesis,  but  is  in  no  respect  a  result  of 
scientific  investigation  into  the  fossil  remains 
of  man.  But  if  man  is  not  such  a  product 
of  spontaneous  evolution,  he  must  have  been 
created  by  a  Being  having  a  higher  reason 
and  a  greater  power  than  his  own ;  and  the 
ancestry  of  the  agnostic,  and  the  rational 
powers  which  he  exercises,  constitute  the  best 
refutation  of  his  own  doctrine. 

16  • 


■V.,., 


■I*.' 


NATURE 


•A  Manifestation  of  Mind. 


i 


i      (. 


LECTURE    V. 


NATURE  AS  A  MANIFESTATION  OF  MIND. 


THE  subjects  already  discussed  should 
have  prepared  us  to  regard  nature  as 
not  a  merely  fortuitous  congeries  of  matter 
and  forces,  but  as  embodying  plan,  design, 
and  contrivance ;  and  we  may  now  inquire 
as  to  the  character  of  these,  considered  as 
possible  manifestations  of  mind  in  nature. 
The  idea  that  nature  is  a  manifestation  of  mind, 
is  ancient,  and  probably  un:'  /ersal.  It  proceeds 
naturally  from  the  analogy  between  the  oper- 
ations of  nature  and  those  which  originate  in 
our  own  will  and  contrivance.  When  men 
begin  to  think  more  accurately,  this  idea  ac- 
quires a  deeper  foundation  in  the  conclusion 
that  nature,  in  all  its  varied  manifestations,  is 
one  vast  machine  too  great  and  complex  for 
us  to  comprehend,  and  irr  plying  a  primary 
energy  infinitely  beyond  that  of  man ;  and 
thus  the  unity  of  nature  points  to  one  Crea- 
tive Mind. 

in 


178 


FACTS  AND   FANCIES 


Even  to  savage  peoples,  in  whose  minds  the 
idea  of  unity  has  .lot  germinated,  or  from 
whose  traditions  it  has  been  lost,  a  spiritual 
essence  appears  to  underlie  all  natural  phe- 
nomena, though  they  may  regard  this  as  con- 
sisting of  a  separate  spirit  or  manitou  for 
*  every  material  thing.  In  all  the  more  culti- 
vated races  the  ideas  of  natural  religion  have 
takeL>  more  definite  forms  in  their  theology 
and  philosophy.  Dugald  Stewart  has  well  ex- 
pressed the  more  scientific  form  of  this  idea 
in  two  shoit  statements: 

"  I .  Every  effect  implies  a  cause. 

"  2.  Every  combination  of  means  to  an  end 
implies  intelligence." 

The  theistic  aspect  of  the  doctrine  had,  as 
we  have  seen  in  a  previous  lecture,  been 
already  admirably  expressed  by  Paul  in  his 
Epistle  to  the  Romans.  Writing  of  what 
every  heathen  must  know  of  mind  in  nature, 
he  says :  "  The  invisible  things  of  him  since 
the  cieation  of  the  world  are  clearly  seen, 
being  perceived  through  the  things  that  are 
made,  even  his  eternal  power  and  divinity." 
The  two  things  which,  according  to  him,  every 
intelligent  man  must  perceive  in  nature  are, 
first,  power  above  and   beyond   that  of  man, 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


179 


are 


and,  secondly,  superhuman  intelligence.  Even 
Agnostic  Evolution  cannot  wholly  divest  itself 
of  the  idea  of  mind  in  nature.  Its  advocates 
continually  use  terms  implying  contiivance 
a  lid  plan  when  speaking  of  nature ;  and 
Spencer  appears  explicitly  to  admit  that  we 
cannot  divest  ourselves  of  the  notion  of  a 
First  Cause.  Even  those  writers  who  seek 
to  shelter  themselves  under  such  vague  and 
unmeaning  statements  as  that  human  intel- 
ligence must  be  potentially  present  in  atoms 
or  in  the  solar  energy,  are  merely  attributing 
superhuman  power  and  divinity  to  atoms  and 
forces. 

Nor  can  they  escape  by  the  magisterial  de- 
nunciation of  such  ideas  as  "anthropomorphic" 
fancies.  All  science  must  in  this  sense  be  an-, 
thropomorphic,  for  it  consists  of  what  nature 
appears  to  us  to  be  when  viewed  through  the 
medium  of  our  senses,  and  of  what  we  think 
of  nature  as  so  presented  to  us.  The  only 
difference  is  this — that  if  Agnostic  Evolution 
is  true.  Science  itself  only  represents  a  certain 
stage  of  the  development,  and  can  have  no 
actual  or  permanent  truth ;  while,  if  the  theistic 
view  is  correct,  then  the  fact  that  man  himself 
belongs  to  the  unity  of  nature  and  is  in  har- 


i8o 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


mony  with  its  other  parts  gives  us  some  guaran- 
tee for  the  absolute  truth  of  scientific  facts  and 

> 

principles. 

We  may  now  consider  more  in  detail  some 
of  the  aspects  under  which  mind  presents  itself 
in  nature. 

I.  It  may  be  maintained  that  nature  is  an 
exhibition  of  regulated  and  determined  power. 
The  first  impression  of  nature  presented  to 
a  mind  uninitiated  in  its  mysteries  is  that  it  is 
a  mere  conflict  of  opposing  forces ;  but  so 
soon  as  we  study  any  natural  phenomena  in 
detail,  we  see  that  this  is  an  error,  and  that 
everything  is  balanced  in  the  nicest  way  by 
the  most  subtle  interactions  of  matter  and 
force.  We  find  also  that,  while  forces  are 
mutually  convertible  and  atoms  susceptible 
of  vast  varieties  of  arrangement,  all  this  is 
determined  by  fixed  law  and  carried  out  with 
invariable    regularity  and  constancy. 

The  vapor  of  water,  for  example,  disused 
in  the  atmosphere,  is  condensed  by  extreme 
cold  and  falls  to  the  ground  in  snowflakes.  In 
these,  particles  of  water  previously  kept  asun- 
der by  heat  are  united  by  cohesive  force ;  and 
the  heat  has  gone  on  other  missions.  But 
these    particles    do    not    merely   unite:    they 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


i8i 


geometrize.  Like  well-drilled  soldiers  arrang- 
ing themselves  in  ranks,  they  form  themselves, 
according  to  regular  axes  of  attraction,  in 
lines  diverging  at  an  angle  of  sixty  degrees ; 
and  thus  the  snowflakes  are  hexagonal  plates 
and  six-rayed  stars,  the  latter  often  growing 
into  very  complex  shapes,  but  all  based  on  the 
law  of  attraction  under  angles  of  sixty  degrees 
(see  Fig.  12).  The  frost  on  the  window-panes 
observes  the  same  law,  and  so  does  every 
crystallization  of  water  where  it  has  scope  to 
arrange  itself  in  accordance  with  its  own 
geometry.  But  this  law  of  crystallization  gives 
to  snow  and  ice  their  mechanical  properties, 
and  is  connected  with  a  multitude  of  adjust- 
ments of  water  in  the  solid  state  to  its  place 
in  nature.  The  same  law,  varied  in  a  vast 
number  of  ways  in  every  distinct  substance, 
builds  up  crystals  of  all  kinds  and  crystalline 
rocks,  and  is  connected  with  countless  adapta- 
tions of  different  kinds  of  matter  to  mechanical 
and  chemical  uses  in  the  arts.  It  is  easv  to  see 
that  all  this  might  have  been  otherwise — nay, 
that  it  must  have  been  otherwise — but  for  the 
institution  of  many  and  complex  laws. 

A  lump  of  coal  at  first  suggests  little  to  ex- 
cite interest  or  imagfination  ;  but  the  student  of 

16 


l82 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES. 


its  composition  and  microscopic  structure  finds 
that  it  is  an  accumulation  of  vegetable  matter 
representing  the  action  of  the  solar  light  on  the 
leaves  of  trees  of  the  Palaeozoic  Age.  It  thus 
calls  up  images  of  these  perished  forests  and 
of  the  causes  concerned  in  their  production  and- 
growth,  and  in  the  accumulation  and  preserva- 
tion of  their  buried  remains.  It  further  sug- 
gests the  many  ways  in  which  this  solar  energy, 
so  long  sealed  up,  can  be  recalled  to  activity  in 
heat,  gaslight,  steam,  and  electric  light,  and  how 
remarkably  these  things  have  been  related  to 
the  wealth  and  the  civilization  of  modern  na- 
tions. An  able  writer  of  the  agnostic  school, 
in  a  popular  lecture  on  coal,  has  his  imagination 
so  stimulated  by  these  thoughts  that  he  apostro- 
phizes "Nature"  as  the  cunning  contriver  who 
stored  up  this  buried  sunlight  by  her  strange 
and  mysterious  alchemy,  kept  it  quietly  to  her- 
self through  all  the  long  geological  periods 
when  reptiles  and  brute  mammals  were  lords 
of  creation,  and  through  those  centuries  of  bar- 
barism when  savage  men  roamed  over  the  pro- 
ductive coal-districts  in  ignorance  of  their  treas- 
ures, and  then  revealed  her  long-hidden  stores 
of  wealth  and  comfort  to  the  admiring  study  of 
science  and  civilization,  and  for  the  benefit  of 


Ftg.   12. 


^  C 

Snowflakes  copied  from  nature  under  the  microscope,  and  serving 
to  illustrate  the  geometrical  arrangement  of  molecules  of  water  in 
crystallizing,  a,  ^,  simple  stars;  ^,  ar',  hexagonal  plates;  <?, /,  rays.of 
large  and  complex  star-shaped  flakes.  The  law  of  arrangement  of  the 
molecules  is  that  of  attraction  in  the  lines  of  three  axes  at  angles  of 
sixty  degrees,  and  the  varieties  are  produced  by  differences  in  temper- 
ature and  rate  of  supply  of  material. 


■Pst.~ 


1 84 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


the  millions  belonging  to  densely-peopled  and 
progressive  nations.  It  is  plain  that  "  Nature  " 
in  such  a  connection  represents  either  a  poet- 
ical fiction,  a  superstitious  fancy,  or  an  intelli- 
gent Creative  Mind.  It  is  further  evident  that 
such  Creative  Mind  must  be  In  harmony  with 
that  of  man,  though  vasdy  greater  In  its  scope 
and  grasp  In  time  and  space. 

Even  the  numerical  relations  observed  in 
nature  teach  the  same  lesson.  The  leaves  of 
plants  are  not  arranged  at  random,  but  in  a 
series  of  curiously-related  spirals,  differing  In 
different  plants,  but  always  the  same  In  the 
same  species  and  regulated  by  definite  laws. 
Similar  definiteness  regulates  the  ramification  of 
plants,  which  depends  primarily  on  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  leaves.  The  angle  of  ramification 
of  the  veins  of  the  leaf  Is  settled  for  each 
species  of  plant ;  so  are  the  numbers  of  parts 
in  the  flower  and  the  angular  arrangement  of  ^ 
these  parts.  It  is  the  same  in  the  animal  king- 
dom, such  numbers  as  5,  6,  8,  10  being  selected 
to  determine  the  parts  In  particular  animals  and 
portions  of  animals.  Once  settled,  these  num- 
bers are  wonderfully  permanent  In  geological 
time.  The  first  known  land  reptiles  appear  In 
the  Carboniferous  period,  and  they  have  nor- 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


185 


of 

ion 
ach 
arts 
t  of' 
ng- 
:ted 
and 
liiim- 
gical 
ir  in 
nor- 


mally five  toes;  these  appear  in  the  earliest 
known  species  in  the  lowest  beds  of  the  Car- 
boniferous. Their  predecessors,  the  fishes,  had 
numerous  fin-rays ;  but  when  limbs  for  locomo- 
tion on  land  were  contrived,  the  number  five  was 
adopted  as  the  typical  one.  It  still  persists  in 
the  five  toes  and  fingers  of  man  himself.  From 
these,  as  is  well  known,  our  decimal  notation  is 
derived.  It  did  not  originate  in  any  special  fit- 
ness of  the  number  ten,  but  in  the  fact  that  men 
began  to  reckon  by  counting  their  ten  fingers. 
Thus  the  decimal  system  of  arithmetic,  with  all 
that  follows  from  it,  was  settled  millions  of  years 
ago,  in  the  Carboniferous  period,  either  by  cer- 
tain low-browed  and  unintelligent  batrachians 
or  by  their  Maker. 

2.  Nature  presents  to  us  very  remarkable 
revelations  of  dissimilar  and  widely-separated 
matters  and  forces.  I  have  referred  to  the  nu- 
merical arrangement  of  the  leaves  of  plants; 
but  the  leaf  itself,  in  its  structure  and  func- 
tions, is  one  of  the  most  remarkable  things  in 
nature.  Composed  of  layers  of  loosely-placed 
living  cells  with  air-spaces  between  them ;  en- 
closed above  and  below  with  a  transparent 
epidermis,  the  spaces  between  the  cells  com- 
municating with  the    atmosphere   without   by 

16  • 


1 86 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES. 


means  of  microscopic  pores  guarded  by  cun- 
ningly-contrived valves  opening  or  closing 
according  to  the  hygrometric  state  of  the  air ; 
connected  with  the  stem  of  the  plant  by  a 
system  of  tubes  strengthened  with  spiral  fibres 
within, — the  structure  of  the  leaf  is,  mechan- 
ically considered,  of  extreme  beauty  and  com- 
plexity. But  its  living  functions  are  still  more 
wonderful.  Receiving  the  water  from  the  soil 
with  such  materials  as  it  brings  thence  in  solu- 
tion, and  absorbing  carbonic  dioxide  and  am- 
monia from  the  air,  the  living  protoplasm  of 
tjie  leaf-cells  has  the  power  of  chemically  chang- 
ing all  these  substances,  and  of  producing  from 
them  those  complicated  and  otherwise  inimita- 
ble organic  compounds  of  which  the  tissues  of 
the  plant  are  built  up.  The  force  by  which 
this  is  done  is  that  of  the  solar  heat  and  light, 
both  admitted  freely  into  the  interior  of  the 
leaf  through  the  transparent  epidermis,  and 
therein  imprisoned,  so  as  to  constitute  a  pow- 
erful storehouse  of  evaporation  and  chemical 
energy.  In  this  way  all  the  materials  available 
for  the  maintenance  of  life,  whether  vegetable 
or  animal,  are  produced,  and  no  other  structure 
than  the  living  vegetable  cell,  as  it  exists  in 
the  leaf,  has  the  power  to  effect  these  miracles 


»  t 


Fig.  13. 

oopoooooooc 


Section  of  the  leaf  of  a  Cycad,  being  one  of  the  most  ancient  styles 
of  leaf  of  which  the  structure  is  known,  a,  upper  epidermis;  d,  upper 
layer  of  cells,  with  grains  of  chlorophyll ;  c,  lower  layer  of  cells,  with 
chlorophyll ;  </,  lower  epidermis ;  e,  stomata,  or  breathing-pores,  with 
contractile  cells  for  opening  and  closing. 

187 


■■-['X. 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


I.I 


1.25 


'-  '*—  III 

^    us,    12.0 


12.2 


1.8 


U    III  1.6 


/a 


/ 


4JW 


%\.^, 


'/ 


/A 


HiotMgraphic 

Sciences 
Corporation 


^'^'^^ 


\ 


4 


V 


:\ 


\ 


% 


■  A  ^  <» 
^^•^^i 


«n.^^^ 


0^ 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  NY.  14SS0 

(716)  973-4503 


"rr-.T 


ia3 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES. 


of  transmutation.  Here,  let  it  be  observed, 
we  have  the  vegetable  cell  placed  in  relation 
with  the  system  of  the  plant,  with  the  soil,  with 
the  atmosphere  and  its  waters,  with  the  distant 
sun  itself  and  the  properties  of  its  emitted 
energies.  Let  it  further  be  observed  that,  on 
the  one  hand,  the  chemistry  involved  in  this  is 
of  a  character  altogether  different  from  that 
which  applies  to  inorganic  matter,  and,  on  the 
other,  the  products  derived  from  a  very  few 
elements  embrace  all  that  vast  variety  of  com- 
pounds which  we  observe  in  plants  and  animals, 
and  which  constitute  the  material  of  one  of  the 
most  complex  of  sciences — that  of  organic 
chemistry.  Finally,  these  complicated  struc- 
tures were  produced  and  all  their  relations 
set  up  at  a  very  early  geological  period.  In  so 
far  as  we  can  judge  from  their  remains  and  the 
results  effected,  the  leaves  of  the  Palaeozoic 
period  were  functionally  as  perfect  as  their 
modern  successors  (see  Figs.  13,  14).  Of 
course,  the  agnostic  evolutionist  may,  if  he 
pleases,  attribute  all  this  to  fortuitous  inter- 
actions of  the  sun,  the  atmosphere,  and  the 
earth,  and  may  provide  for  what  these  fail  to 
expl"  In  by  the  assumption  of  potentialities 
eqiiivalent  to   the  things  produced.     But  the 


Fig.  14. 


Foliage  from  the  coal-forniation,  showing  some  of  the  forms  of 
leaves  instrumental  in  accumulating  the  carbon  of  our  coal-beds,  by 
their  action  on  the  atmosphere  under  the  influence  of  sunlight. 


189 


IQO  FACTS  AND  FANCIES. 

probability  of  such  an  hypothesis  becomes 
infinitely  small  when  we  consider  the  variety 
and  the  diversity  of  things  and  forces  which 
must  have  conspired  to  produce  the  results 
observed,  and  to  maintain  them  so  constantly, 
and  yet  with  so  much  difference  in  circum- 
stances and  details.  It  is  a  relief  to  turn  from 
such  bewildering  and  gratuitous  suppositions 
to  the  theory  which  supposes  a  designing 
Creative  Mind.  ^ 

From  the  boundless  variety  of  illustrations 
which  the  animal  kingdom  presents  I  may 
select  one — the  contrivances  by  means  of 
which  marine  animals  are  enabled  to  float  or 
balance  themselves  in  the  waters.  The  Pearly 
Nautilus  (see  Fig.  1 5)  is  one  of  the  most  famil- 
iar, and  also  one  of  the  most  curious.  Its 
coiled  shell  is  divided  by  partitions  into  air- 
chambers  so  proportioned  that  the  buoyancy 
of  the  air  is  sufficient  to  counterpoise  in  sea- 
water  the  weight  of  the  animal.  There  are 
also  contrivances  by  which  the  density  of  the 
contained  air  and  of  the  body  of  the  animal  can 
be  so  modified  as  slightly  to  disturb  this  equi- 
librium, and  to  enable  the  creature  to  rise  or 
sink  in  the  waters.  It  would  be  tedious  to 
describe,  without  adequate  illustrations,  all  the 


Fig.  15. 


Section  of  the  Pearly  Nautilus  and  its  shell,  showing  that  the  animal 
occupies  only  the  outer  chamber,  the  others  being  filled  with  air  and 
acting  as  a  float  whose  buoyancy  can  be  modified  by  the  action  of  the 
tube,  or  siphuncle,  passing  through  the  chambers. 


a»i 


192  FACTS  AND  FANCIES. 

machinery  connected  with  these  adjustments. 
It  is  sufficient  for  our  purpose  to  know  that 
they  are  provided  in  such  a  manner  that  the 
animal  is  practically  exempted  from  the  opera- 
tion of  the  force  of  gravity.  In  the  modern 
seas  these  provisions  are  enjoyed  by  only  a 
few  species  of  the  genera  Nautilus  and  Spirula; 
but  in  former  geological  ages,  more  numerous, 
as  well  as  larger  and  more  complex,  forms 
existed.  Further,  this  contrivance  is  very  old. 
We  find  in  the  Orthoceratites  and  their  allies  of 
the  earliest  Silurian  formations  these  arrange- 
ments in  their  full  perfection,  and  in  some 
forms*  even  more  complex  than  in  later  types. 
The  peculiar  contrivances  observed  in  the 
nautilus  and  its  allies  are  possessed  by  no  other 
mollusks,  but  there  is  another  group  of  some- 
what lower  grade,  that  of  the  lanthitUBt  or  vio- 
let snails,  in  which  flotation  is  provided  for  in 
another  way  (see  Fig.  16).  In  these  animals 
the  shell  is  perfectly  simple,  though  light,  and 
the  floating  apparatus  consists  in  a  series  of 
horny  air-vesicles  attached  to  what  is  termed 
the  "foot"  of  the  animal,  and  which  are  in- 
creased in  number  to  suit  its  increasing  weight 
as  it  grows  in  size.    There  are  some  reasons 

♦  As  Pihcereu,  iot  example. 


r  ? 


1 

0      (V* 

•S  S-  g: 

p     ►*    a- 

w    a.  J* 

B    S'  o 

M        «        S? 

s  -  <? 

g   ^   ° 

§•  ^r 

s.    «-     g 

8    ^  • 

*:    rt    04 

o 

to  a 
atta 
f  th 

i  ^  f 

s  *  g 

mpose 
When 

t. 

dof 
hate 

tr   tf 

n     o 

yhoU 
each 

*<    2 

2    < 

CfQ      g^ 

g   & 

•-« 

E.  ff 

ir 


•93 


(; 


194 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES. 


to  believe  that  this  entirely  different  contrivance 
is  as  old  in  geological  time  as  the  chambered 
shell  of  the  nautiloid  animals.  It  was,  indeed, 
in  all  probability,  more  common  and  adapted  to 
larger  animals  in  the  Silurian  period  than  at 
present. 

Another  curious  instance — not,  so  far  as  yet 
known,  existing  at  all  in  the  modern  world — is 
that  of  tlie  remarkable  stalked  star-fish  de- 
scribed by  Professor  Hall  under  the  name 
Camerocrinus^  and  whose  remains  are  found 
in  the  Upper  Silurian  rocks.  The  Crinoids, 
or  feather-stars,  are  well-known  inhabitants  of 
the  seas,  in  both  ancient  and  modern  times ;  but 
previous  to  Professor  Hall's  discovery  they 
were  known  only  as  animals  attached  by  flex- 
ible stems  to  the  sea-bottom  or  creeping  slowly 
by  means  of  their  radiating  arms.  It  was  not 
suspected  that  any  of  them  had  committed 
themselves  to  the  mercy  of  the  currents,  sus- 
pended from  floats.  It  appears,  however,  Jiat 
this  was  actually  realized  in  the  Upper  Silurian 
period,  wheii  certain  animals  of  this  group  de- 
veloped a  hollow  calcareous  vesicle  forming  a 
balloon-shaped  float,  from  which  they  could 
hang  suspended  in  the  water  and  float  freely 
(see  Fig.  17).     So  far  as  known,  this  remark- 


Fig.  17. 


Camerocrinus,  reduced  in  size  (as  restored  by  Hall).  This  is  a 
crinoid,  or  feather-star,  of  the  Upper  Silurian  period,  floating  by 
means  of  a  hollow  balloon-shaped  structure  divided  into  chambers 
and  formed  of  calcareous  plates. 


196  FACTS  AND  FANCIES. 

able  contrivance  was  temporary,  and  probably 
adapted  to  some  peculiarities  of  the  habits  and 
food  of  these  animals  occurring  only  in  the 
geological  period  in  which  they  existed. 

Examples  of  this  sort  of  adjustment  are  found 
in  other  types  of  animal  life.  In  the  beautiful 
Portuguese  man-of-war  (PhyscUia)  and  its  allies 
flotation  is  provided  for  by  membranous  or  car- 
tilaginous sacs  or  vesicles  filled  with  air,  and 
which  are  the  common  support  of  numerous 
individuals  which  hang  from  them  (see  Fig.  1 8) . 
In  some  allied  creatures  the  buoyancy  required 
is  secured  by  little  vesicles  filled  with  oil  se- 
creted by  the  animals  themselves. 

In  each  of  these  cases  we  have  a  skilful  adap- 
tation of  means  to  ends.  The  float  is  so  con- 
structed as  to  avail  itself  of  the  properties  of 
gases  and  liquids,  and  the  apparatus  is  framed 
on  the  most  scientific  principles  and  in  the  most 
artistic  manner.  That  this  apparatus  grows  and 
is  not  mechanically  put  together,  and  that  in 
each  case  the  instincts  and  the  habits  of  the 
animal  have  been  correlated  with  it,  can  scarce- 
ly be  held  by  the  most  obtuse  intellect  to  in- 
validate the  evidence  of  intelligent  design. 

3.  Structures  apparently  the  most  simple,  and 
often  heedlessly  spoken  of  as  if  they  involved 


Fig.  i8. 


The  Pkysaiia,  or  «  Portuguese  man-otwar  "  of  the  AtUnHc,  being  a 
colony  of  animals  provided  with  long  tentacles  used  as  fishing-lines, 
and  hanging  from  a  membranous  float  with  a  crest,  or  «'8aU,''  on  the 
top,  and  a  pointed  end  which,  being  turned  from  side  to  side,  serves 
as  a  rudder. 


If 


^WW> 


198 


FACTS  AND   FANCIES 


no  complexity,  prove,  on  examination,  to  be  in- 
tricate and  complex  almost  beyond  conception. 
In  nothing,  perhaps,  is  this  better  seen  than  in 
that  much-abused  protoplasm  which  has  been 
made  to  do  duty  for  God  in  the  origination  of 
life,  but  which  is  itself  a  most  laboriously  man- 
ufactured material.  Albumen,  or  white  of  ^^^ 
— which  is  otherwise  named  "  protoplasm  " — is 
a  very  complicated  substance  both  chemically 
and  in  its  molecular  arrangements,  and  when 
endowed  with  life  it  presents  properties  alto- 
gether inscrutable.  It  is  easy  to  say  that  the 
protoplasm  of  an  ^^^  or  of  some  humble  an- 
imalcule or  microscopic  embryo  is  little  more 
than  a  mass  of  structureless  jelly ;  yet,  in  the 
case  of  the  embryo,  a  microscopic  dot  of  this 
apparently  structureless  jelly  must  contain  all 
the  parts  of  the  future  animal,  however  com- 
plex ;  but  how  we  may  never  know,  and  cer- 
tainly cannot  yet  comprehend. 

There  are  minute  animalcules  belonging  to 
the  group  of  flagellate  Infusoria,  some  of  which, 
under  ordinary  microscopic  powers,  appear 
merely  as  moving  specks,  and  show  their  act- 
ual structures  only  under  powers  of  two  thou- 
sand diameters,  or  more ;  yet  these  animals  can 
be  seen  to  have  an  outer  skin  and  an  inner 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


199 


mass,  to  have  pulsating  sacs  and  reproductive 
organs,  and  threadlike  flagella  wherewith  to 
swim.  Their  eggs  are,  of  course,  much  small- 
er than  themselves — so  much  so  that  some  of 
them  are  probably  invisible  under  the  highest 
powers  yet  employed.  Each  of  them  however, 
is  potentially  an  animal,  with  all  its  parts  rep- 
resented structurally  in  some  way.  Nor  need 
we  wonder  at  this.  It  has  been  calculated  that 
a  speck  scarcely  visible  under  the  most  po\/er- 
ful  microscope  may  contain  two  million  four 
hundred  thousand  molecules  of  protoplasm.* 
If  each  of  these  molecules  were  a  brick,  there 
would  be  enough  of  them  to  build  a  terrace  of 
twenty-five  good  dwelling-houses.  But  this  is 
supposing  them  to  be  all  alike ;  whereas  we 
know  that  the  molecules  of  albumen  are  capa- 
ble of  being  of  very  various  kinds.  Each  of 
these  molecules  really  contains  eight  hundred 
and  eighty- two  ultimate  atoms — namely,  four 
hundred  of  carbon,  three  hundred  and  ten  of 
hydrogen,  one  hundred  and  twenty  of  oxygen, 
fifty  of  nitrogen,  and  two  of  sulphur  and  phos- 
phorus. Now,  we  know  that  these  atoms  may 
be  differently  "arranged  in  different  molecules, 

*  I  am  indebted  for  these  figures  to  my  friend  Dr.  S.  P.  Robins  of 
Montreal. 


200 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


producing  considerable  difference  of  proper- 
ties. Let  us  try,  then,  to  calculate  of  how 
many  differences  of  arrangement  the  atoms  of 
one  molecule  of  protoplasm  are  susceptible, 
and  then  to  calculate  of  how  many  changes 
these  different  assemblages  are  capable  in  a 
microscopic  dot  composed  of  two  million  four 
hundred  thousand  of  them.  It  is  scarcely  neces- 
sary to  say  that  such  a  calculation,  in  the  multi- 
tudes of  possibilities  involved,  transcends  human 
powers  of  imagination  ;  yet  it  answers  questions 
of  mechanical  and  chemical  grouping  merely, 
without  any  reference  to  the  additional  mystery 
of  life.  Let  it  be  observed  that  this  vastly  com- 
plex material  is  assumed  as  if  there  were  noth- 
ing remarkable  in  it,  by  many  of  those  theorists 
who  plausibly  explain  to  us  the  spontaneous 
origin  of  living  things.  But  nature,  in  arrang- 
ing all  the  parts  of  a  complicated  animal  before- 
hand in  an  apparently  structureless  microsco- 
pic ovum,  has  all  these  vast  numbers  to  deal  with 
in  working  out  the  exact  result ;  and  this  not  in 
one  case  merely,  but  in  multitudes  of  cases  in- 
volving the  most  varied  combinations.  We  can 
scarcely  suppose  the  atoms  themselves  to  have 
the  power  of  thus  unerringly  marshalling  them- 
selves to  work  out  the  sti*uctures  of  organisms 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


201 


infinitely  varied,  yet  all  alike  after  their  kinds. 
If  not,  then  "  Nature  "  must  be  a  goddess  gifted 
with  superhuman  powers  of  calculation  and  mar- 
vellous deftness  in  arranging  invisible  atoms. 

4.  The  beauty  of  form,  proportion,  and  color- 
ing that  abounds  in  nature  affords  evidence  of 
mind.  Herculean  efforts  have  been  made  by 
modern  evolutionists  to  eliminate  altogether 
the  idea  of  beauty  from  nature,  by  theories  of 
sexual  selection  and  the  like,  and  to  persuade 
us  that  beauty  is  merely  utility  in  disguise,  and 
even  then  only  an  accidental  coincidence  be- 
tween our  perceptions  and  certain  external 
things.  But.  in  no  part  of  their  argument 
have  they  more  signally  failed  in  accounting 
for  i:ie  observed  facts,  and  in  no  part  have  they 
more  seriously  outraged  the  common  sense 
and  natural  taste  of  men.  In  point  of  fact, 
we  have  here  one  of  those  great  correlations 
belonging  to  the  unity  of  nature — that  indis- 
soluble connection  which  has  been  established 
between  the  senses  and  the  aesthetic  senti- 
ments of  man  and  certain  things  in  the  exter- 
nal world.  But  there  is  more  in  beauty  than 
this  merely  anthropological  relation.  Certain 
forms,  for  example,  adopted  in  the  skeletons 
of  the  lower  animals  are  necessarily  beautiful 


202 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES. 


because  of  their  geometrical  proportions.  Cer- 
tain styles  of  coloring  are  necessarily  beautiful 
because  of  harmonies  and  contrasts  which 
depend  on  the  essential  properties  of  the 
waves  of  light.  Beauty  is  thus  in  a  great 
measure  independent  of  the  taste  of  the  spec- 
tator. It  is  also  independent  of  mere  utility, 
since,  even  if  we  admit  that  all  these  combina- 
tions of  forms,  motions,  and  colors  which  we 
call  beautiful  are  also  useful,  it  is  easy  to 
perceive  that,  the  end  could  often  be  attained 
without  the  beauty. 

.  It  is  a  curious  fact  that  some  of  the  .simplest 
animals — as,  for  example,  sponges  and  Foramin- 
ifera — are  furnished  with  the  most  beautiful 
skeletons.  Nothing  can  exceed  the  beauty 
of  form  and  proportions  in  the  shells  of  some 
Foraminifera  and  Polycistina,  or  in  the  skele- 
tons of  some  silicious  sponges  (see  Fig.  19), 
while  it  is  obvious  .that  these  humble  creatures, 
without  brains  and  external  senses,  can  neither 
contrive  nor  appreciate  the  beauty  with  which 
they  are  clothed.  Further,  some  of  these 
structures  are  very  old  geologically.  The 
sponge  whose  skeleton  is  known  as  "  Venus's 
flower-basket"  produces  a  structure  of  inter- 
woven silicious  threads  exquisite  in  its  beauty 


Fig.  19. 


Magnified  portion  of  a  silicions  sponge,  showing  the  principle  of 
construction  of  the  hexactinellid  sponges,  with  six-rayed  spicules 
joined  together  and  strengthened  with  diagonal  braces.    ^AfUr  Zittel ) 


aoj 


\\ 


204 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES. 


and  perfect  in  its  mechanical  arrangements 
for  strength  (Figure  20).  Even  in  the  old 
Cambiian  rocks  there  are  remains  of  sponges 
which  seem  already  to  have  practically  solved 
the  geometrical  problems  involved  in  the  pro- 
duction of  these  wonderful  skeletons ;  and  with 
a  Chinese-like  persistency,  having  attained  to 
perfection,  they  have  adhered  to  it  throughout 
geological  time.  Nor  is  there  anything  of 
mere  inorganic  crystallization  in  this.  The  sil- 
ica of  which  the  skeletons  are  made  is  colloidal, 
not  crystalline,  and  the  forms  themselves  have 
no  relations  to  the  crystalline  axes  of  silici. 
Such  illustrations  might  b€  multiplied  to  any 
extent,  and  apply  to  all  the  beauties  of  form, 
structure,  and  coloring  which  abound  around 
OS  and  far  excel  our  artificial  imitations  of 
them. 

5.  The  instinctii  of  the  lower  animals  imply 
a  Higher  Intelligence.  Instinct,  in  the  theistic 
view  of  nature,  can  be  nothing  less  than  a 
divine  inspiration  placing  the  animal  in  relation 
with  other  things  and  processes,  often  of  the 
most  complex  character,  and  which  it  could 
by  no  means  have  devised  for  itself.  Further, 
instinct  is  in  its  very  essence  a  thing  unimprov- 
able.    Like   the   laws   of    nature,   it  pperates 


Fig.  aa 


Euplectella,  or  "  Venus's  flower  basket,"  a  silicious  sponge,  showing 
its  general  form.     (Reduced,  from  Am.  Naturalist,  vol.  iv.) 


18 


■05 


206 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


invariably;  and  xi  diminish^id  or  changed,  it 
would  prove  useless  i'cr  its  purpose.  It  is 
not,  like  human  inventions,  slowly  perfected 
under  the  influence  of  thought  and  imagination, 
and  laboriously  taught  by  each  generation  to 
its  successors :  it  is  inherited  by  each  genera- 
tion in  all  its  perfection,  and  from  the  first 
goes  directly  to  its  end  as  if  it  were  a  merely 
physical  cause. 

The  favorite  explanation  of  instinct  from 
the  side  of  Agnostic  Evolution  is  that  it  orig- 
inated in  the  struggle  for  existence  of  some 
previous  generation,  and  was  then  perpetuated 
as  an  inheritance.  But,  like  most  of  the  other 
explanations  of  this  school,  this  quietly  takes 
for  granted  what  should  be  proved.  That 
instinct  is  hereditary  is  evident;  but  the  ques- 
tion is.  How  did  it  begin  ?  and  to  say  simply 
that  it  did  begin  at  some  former  period  is  to 
tell  us  nothing.  From  a  scientific  point  of 
view,  the  invariable  operation  of  any  natural 
law  afifords  no  evidence  of  any  gradual  or 
sudden  origination  of  it  at  any  point  of  past 
time ;  and  when  such  law  is  connected  with  a 
complicated  organism  and  various  other  laws 
and  processes  of  the  external  world,  the  sup- 
position  of    its    slowly   arising   from    nothing 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


207 


to 


through  many  generations  of  animals  becomes 
too  intricate  to  be  credible.  Instinct  must  have 
originated  in  a  perfect  condition,  and  with  the 
organism  and  its  environment  already  estab- 
lished. I  may  borrow  here  an  apposite  illus- 
tration from  recent  papers  on  the  unity  of 
nature  by  the  Duke  of  Argyll,  which  deserve 
careful  study  by  any  one  who  values  common- 
sense  views  of  this  subject.  The  example 
which  I  select  is  that  of  the  action  of  a  young 
merganser  in  its  effort  to  elude  pursuit : 

"  On  a  secluded  lake  in  one  of  the  Hebrides, 
I  observed  a  dun-diver,  or  female  of  the  red- 
breasted  merganser  {Mergus  serrator),  with 
her  brood^  of  young  ducklings.  On  giving 
chase  in  the  boat  we  soon  found  that  the 
young,  although  not  above  a  fortnight  old, 
had  such  extraordinary  powers  of  swimming  and 
diving  that  it  was  almost  impossible  to  capture 
them.  The  distance  they  went  under  v»rater, 
and  the  unexpected  places  in  which  they 
emerged,  baffled  all  our  efforts  for  a  consider- 
able time.  At  last  one  of  the  brood  made 
for  the  shore,  with  the  object  of  hiding  among 
the  grass  and  heather  which  fringed  the  margin 
of  the  lake.  We  pursued  it  as  closely  as  we 
could ;    but  when   the   little    bird   gained   the 


208 


FACTS  AND   FANCIES 


shore^  our  boat  was  still  about  twenty  yards 
off.  Long  drought  had  left  a  broad  margin 
of  small  flat  stones  and  mud  between  the 
water  and  the  usual  bank.  I  saw  the  little 
bird  run  up  about  a  couple  of  yards  from  the 
water,  and  then  suddenly  disappear.  Knowing 
what  was  likely  to  be  enacted,  I  kept  my  eye 
fixed  on  the  spot;  and  v/hen  the  boat  was 
run  upon  the  beach,  I  proceeded  to  find  and 
pick  up  the  chick.  But,  on  reaching  the  place 
of  disappearance,  no  sign  of  the  young  mer- 
ganser was  to  be  seen.  The  closest  scrutiny, 
with  the  certain  knowledge  that  it  was  there, 
failed  to  enable  me  to  detect  it.  Proceeding 
cautiously  forward,  I  soon  became  convinced 
that  I  had  already  overshot  the  mark ;  and, 
on  turning  round,  it  was  only  to  see  the  bird 
rioe  like  an  apparition  from  the  stones  and, 
dashing  past  the  stranded  boat,  regain  the 
lake,  where,  having  now  recovered  its  wind, 
it  instantly  dived  and  disappeared.  The  tac- 
tical skill  of  the  whole  of  this  manoeuvre,  and 
the  success  with  which  it  was  executed,  were 
greeted  with  loud  cheers  from  the  whole  party ; 
and  our  admiration  was  not  diminished  when 
we  remembered  that,  some  two  weeks  before 
that  time,  the  little  performer  had  been  coiled 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


209 


up  inside  the  shell  of  an  »-^^g,  and  that  about 
a  month  before  it  was  apparently  nothing  but 
a  mass  of  albumen  and  of  fatty  oils." 

On  this  the  duke  very  properly  remarks  that 
any  idea  of  training  and  experience  is  absolute- 
ly excluded,  because  it  "  assumes  the  pre-exist- 
ence  of  the  very  powers  for  which  it  professes 
to  account."  He  then  turns  to  the  idea  that 
animals  are  merely  automata  or  "machines." 
Here  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  essential 
idea  of  a  machine  is  twofold.  First,  it  is  a 
merely  mechanical  structure  put  together  to 
do  certain  things ;  secondly,  it  must  be  related 
to  a  contriver  and  constructor.  If  we  think 
proper  to  call  the  young  merganser  a  machine, 
we  must  admit  both  of  these  characters,  more 
especially  as  the  bird  is  in  every  way  a  more 
marvellous  machine  than  any  of  human  con- 
struction. He  concludes  his  notice  of  this  case 
with  the  following  suggestive  words : 

"  This  is  a  method  of  escape  which  cannot  be 
resorted  to  successfully  except  by  birds  whose 
coloring  is  adapted  to  the  purpose  by  a  close 
assimilation  with  the  coloring  of  surrounding 
objects.  The  old  bird  would  not  have  been 
concealed  on  the  same  ground,  and  would 
never  itself  resort  to  the  same  method  of  es- 

18  • 


210 


FACTS  AND   FANCIES 


cape.  The  young,  therefore,  cannot  have  bee'n 
instructed  in  it  by  the  method  of  example.  But 
the  small  size  of  the  chick,  together  with  its  ob- 
scure and  curiously-mottled  coloring,  are  spe- 
cially adapted  to  this  mode  of  concealment. 
The  young  of  all  birds  which  breed  upon  the 
ground  are  provided  with  a  garment  in  su'  h 
perfect  harmony  with  surrounding  effeots  of 
light  as  to  render  this  manoeuvre  easy.  It 
depends,  however,  wholly  for  its  success  upon 
absolute  stillness.  The  slightest  motion  at  once 
attracts  the  eye  of  any  enemy  which  is  search- 
ing for  the  young.  And  this  absolute  stillness 
must  be  preserved  amidst  all  the  emotions  of 
fear  and  terror  which  the  close  approach  of  the 
object  of  alarm  must,  and  obviously  does,  in- 
spire. Whence  comes  this  splendid,  even  if-  it 
be  unconscious,  faith  in  the  sufficiency  of  a 
defence  which  it  must  require  such  nerve  and 
strength  of  will  to  practise?  No  movement, 
not  even  the  slightest,  though  the  enemy  should 
seem  about  to  trample  on  it, — such  is  the  ter- 
rible requirement  of  nature,  and  by  the  child 
of  nature  implicitly  obeyed.  Here,  again,  be- 
yond all  question,  we  have  an  instinct  as  much 
born  with  the  creature  as  the  harmonious  tint- 
ing of  its  plumage,  the  external  furnishing  be- 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


211 


ing  inseparably  united  with  the  internal  fiir- 
nishintr  of  mind  which  enables  the  little  crea- 
ture  in  very  truth  to  'walk  by  faith,  and  not 
by  sight.'  Is  this  automatism  ?  Is  this  machi- 
nery ?  Yes,  undoubtedly,  in  the  sense  explained 
before-^-that  the  instinct  has  been  given  to  the 
bird  in  precisely  the  same  sense  in  which  its 
structure  has  been  given  to  it ;  so  that  anterior 
to  all  experience,  and  without  the  aid  of  in- 
struction or  of  example,  it  is  inspired  to  act  in 
this  manner  oh  the  appropriate  occasion  aris- 
ing." 

Lastly,  the  reason  of  man  himself  is  an  actual 
illustration  of  mind  in  nature.  -Here  we  raise  a 
question  which  should  perhaps  have  been  con- 
sidered earlier :  Is  man  himself  actually  a  part 
of  what  we  call  nature  ?  We  are  so  accustomed 
to  the  distinction  between  tilings  natural  and 
things  artificial  that  we  are  liable  to  overlook 
this  essential  question.  Is  nature  the  universe 
outside  of  us, .  containing  the  things  that  we 
study  and  which  constitute  our  environment? 
Are  we  elevated  on  a  pedestal,  so  to  speak, 
above  nature?  or,  on  the  other  hand,  does  na- 
ture include  man  himself?  In  that  haze  or  fog 
of  ideas  which  environs  modern  evolutionism, 
it  is  not  wonderful  that  this  question  escapes 


212 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


notice,  and  that  the  most  contradictory  utter- 
ances are  given  forth.  Tyndall — by  no  means 
the  most  foggy  of  the  agnostics — may  afford 
an  instance.  He  remarks  respecting  the  phil- 
osophers of  antiquity :  *  "  The  experiences  which 
formed  the  weft  and  woof  of  their  theories  were 
drawn,  not  from  the  study  of  nature,  but  from 
that  whici  lay  much  closer  to  them — the  ob- 
servation of  man.  .  .  .  Their  theories  accord- 
ingly took  an  anthropomorphic  form."  Here 
we  see  that  in  the  view  of  the  writer  man  is 
distinct  from  and  outside  of  nature,  and  so  much 
out  of  harmony  with  it  that  the  observation  of 
him  leads  to  fdlse  conclusions,  stigmatized,  ac- 
cordingly, as  "anthropomorphic."  In  this  case 
man  must  be  supernatural,  and  preternatural  as 
well.  But  it  is  Tyndall's  precise  object  to  show 
us  that  there  is  nothing  supernatural  either  in 
man  or  elsewhere.  The  contradiction  is  an  in- 
structive example  of  the  delusions  which  some- 
times pass  for  science. 

If,  with  Tyndall,  we  are  to  place  man  outside 
of  nature,  then  the  human  mind  at  once  be- 
comes  i"o  us  a  supernatural  intelligence.  But 
truth  forbids  such  a  conclusion.  The  reason 
of  man,  however  beyond  the  intelligence  of 

*  Belfast  Address. 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


213 


lower  animals,  so  harmpnizes  with  natural  laws 
that  it  is  evidently  a  part  of  the  great  unity  of 
nature,  and  we  can  no  more  dissociate  the  mind  * 
of  man  from  nature  than  from  his  own  animal 
body.  If  we  could  do  so,  we  might  have  ground 
to  distrust  the  validity  of  all  our  conclusions  as 
to  nature,  and  thus  to  cut  away  the  foundations 
of  science ;  and  what  remained  of  philosophy 
and  religion  would  be  preternatural,  in  the  bad 
sense  of  destroying  the  unity  of  nature  and  im- 
perilling our  confidence  in  the  unity  of  the  Cre-, 
ator  himself. 

In  connection  with  this  we  have  cause  to  con- 
sider the  true  meaning  and  use  of  two  terms 
often  hurled  at  theists  as  weapons  of  attack. 

The  word  "anthropomorphic"  is  a  term  of 
reproach  for  our  interpreting  nature  in  har- 
mony with  our  own  thoughts  or  our  own  con- 
stitution. But  if  rpan  is  a  part  of  nature,  he 
must  be  a  competent  interpreter  of  it.  If  he 
is  not  a  part  of  nature,  then,  whether  we  make 
him  godlike  or  a  demon,  we  have,  ip  him,  to 
deal  with  something  supernatural.  It  is  true 
that  in  a  certain  sense  he  is  above  nature,  but 
not  in  any  sense  which  so  dissociates  him  from 
it  as  to  prevent  him  from  rationally  thinking  of 
it  in  his  own  thoughts  and  speaking  of  it  in  his 


214 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


own  form  of  words.  So  true  is  this  that  no 
writers  are  more  anthropomorphic  in  their 
*  modes  of  speaking  of  nature  than  those  who 
most  strongly  denounce  anthropomorphism. 
Even  the  celebrated  definition  of  life  by  Her- 
bert Spencer  cannot  escape  this  tincture. 
"Life,"  he  says,  "is  the  continuous  adj^istment 
of  internal  to  external  conditions."  Now,  the 
essence  of  this  definition  lies  in  the  word  *  ad- 
justment." But  to  adjust  is  to  arrange,  adapt, 
or  fit — all  purely  human  and  intelligent  actions. 
Nothing,  therefore,  could  be  more  anthropo- 
morphic than  such  a  statement.  As  theists  we 
need  not  complain  of  this,  but  surely  as  agnos- 
tics V7e  should  decidedly  object  to  it. 

The  other  word  whose  meaning  it  is  neces- 
sary to  consider  is  "supernatural,"  which  it 
might  be  well,  perhaps,  to  follow  the  example 
of  the  New  Testament  in  avoiding  altogether 
as  a  misleading  term.  If  by  supernatural  we 
mean  something  outside  of  and  above  nature 
and  natural  law,  there  is  really  no  such  thing 
in  the  universe.  There  may  be  that  which  is 
"  spiritual,"  as  distinguished  from  that  which  is 
natural  in  the  material  sense ;  but  the  spiritual 
has  its  own  laws,  which  are  not  in  conflict  with 
those  of  the  natural.     Even  God  cannot  in  this 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCK 


215 


sense  be  said  to  be  supernatural,  since  his  will 
is  necessarily  in  conformity  with  natural  law. 
Yet  this  absurd  sense  of  the  term  "  supernat- 
ural "  is  constantly  forced  upon  us  by  so-called 
advanced  thinkers,  and  employed  as  an  argu- 
ment against  theism.  The  only  true  sense  in 
which  any  being  or  any  thing  can  be  said  to  be 
supernatural  is  that  in  which  we  use  it  with  ref- 
erence to  the  original  creation  of  matter  and 
force  and  the  institution  of  natural  law.  The 
power  which  can  do  these  things  is  above  na- 
ture, but  not  outside  of  it ;  for  matter,  energy, 
and  law  must  be  included  in,  and  in  harmony 
with,  the  Creative  Will. 

To  return  from  this  digression.  If  man  is  a 
part  of  nature,  we  can  see  how  it  is  that  he  con- 
forms to  natural  law,  not  merely  in  his  bodily 
organization  and  capabilities,  but  in  his  mind 
and  habits  of  thought,  so  that  he  can  compre- 
hend nature  and  employ  it  for  his  purposes. 
Even  his  moral  and  his  religious  ideas  must  in 
this  case  be  conformed  to  his  conditions  of  ex- 
istence as  a  part  of  nature.  We  have  herg 
also  the  surest  guarantee  of  the  correctness  of 
our  conclusions  respecting  the  laws  of  nature. 
In  like  manner,  there  is  here  a  sense  in  which 
man  is  above  nature,  because  he  is  placed  at  the 


2l6 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES. 


head  of  it.  In  another  sense  he  is  inferior  to 
the  aggregate  of  nature,  because,  as  Agassiz 
well  puts  it,  there  is  in  the  universe  a  "  weahh 
of  endowment  of  the  most  comprehensive  men- 
tal manifestations  which  man  can  never  fully 
comprehend." 

Still  further,  if  the  universe  has  been  created, 
then,  just  as  its  laws  must  be  in  harmony  with 
the  will  of  the  Creator,  so  must  our  mental  con- 
stitution ;  and  man,  as  a  reasoning  and  con- 
scious being,  must  be  made  in  the  image  of  his 
Maker.  If  we  discard  the  idea  of  an  intelligent 
Creator,  then  mind  and  all  its  powers  must  be 
potentially  in  the  atoms  of  matter  or  in  the 
forces  which  move  them ;  but  this  is  a  mere 
form  of  words  signifying  nothing,  or,  if  it  has 
any  significance,  this  is  contrary  to  science, 
since  it  bestows  on  matter  properties  which 
experiment  does  not  show  it  to  possess.  Thus 
the  existence  of  man  is  not  only  a  positive 
proof  of  the  presence  of  mind  in  nature,  but 
affords  the  strongest  possible  proof  of  a  higher 
Creative  Mind,  from  which  that  of  man  ema- 
nates. The  power  which  originated  and  sus- 
tains the  universe  must  be  at  least  as  much 
greater  and  more  intelligent  than  man  as  the 
universe  is  greater  than  man  in  the  power  and 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE.  21/ 

the  contrivance  which  it  indicates.  Thus  we 
return  to  the  Pauline  idea-that  the  power  and 
the  divinity  of  the  Creator  are  shown  by  the 
things  he  has  made.  Legitimate  science  can 
say  nothing  more,  and  can  say  nothing  less. 


VI. 


Science  and  Revelation. 


,4 


LECTURE    VI. 


SCIENCE  AND  REVELATION. 

THUS  far  we  have  proceeded  solely  on 
scientific  grounds,  and  have  seen  that 
Monism  and  Agnosticism  fail  to  account  for 
nature.  We  may  therefore  feel  ourselves  jus- 
tified in  assuming,  as  the  only  promising  solu- 
tion of  the  enigma  of  existence,  the  being 
of  a  Divine  Creator.  But  this  does  not  wholly 
exhaust  the  relations  of  science  to  religion. 
When  Science  has  led  us  into  the  presence  of 
the  Creator,  she  has  brought  us  to  the  thresh- 
old of  religion,  and  there  she  suggests  the 
possibility  that  the  spirit  of  man  may  have 
other  relations  with  God  beyond  those  estab- 
lished by  merely  physical  law.  Science  may 
venture  to  say:  "If  all  nature  expresses  the 
will  of  the  Creator  as  carried  out  in  his  laws, 
if  the  instinct  of  lower  animals  is  an  inspira- 
tion of  God,  should  we  not  expect  that  there 
will  be  laws  of  a  higher  order  regulating  the 
free  moral  nature  of  man,  and  that  there  will 

19  •  221 


222 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


be  possibilities  of  the  reason  of  man  communi- 
cating with,  or  receiving  aid  from,  the  Supreme 
Intelligence?"  Science  undoubtedly  suggests 
this  much  to  our  reason,  and  the  suggestion 
has  commended  itself  to  most  of  the  greater 
and  clearer  minds  that  have  studied  nature, 
whatever  their  religious  beliefs  or  their  want 
of  them. 

It  may  thus  be  allowable  for  us,  without 
encroaching  on  the  domain  of  theology,  to 
inquire  to  what  extent  scientiiic  principles  and 
scientific  habits  of  thought  agree  with  or  di- 
verge from  the  religious  beliefs  of  men.  I  do 
not  propose  to  enter  here  into  the  inquiry  as 
to  the  accordance  of  the  Bible  with  the  earth's 
geolpgical  history,  or  that  of  its  representa- 
tions of  nature  with  the  facts  as  held  by 
science.  These  subjects  I  have  fully  discussed 
in  other  works,  which  are  sufficiently  access- 
ible,* I  shall  merely  refer  to  certain  general 
relations  of  science  to  the  probability  of  a 
divine  revelation,  and  to  the  character  of  such 
revelation. 

As  to  what  is  termed  natural  religion,  enough 
has  already  been  said.    If  nature  testifies  to  the 

*  More  especially  in  The  Origin  of  the  World  (London  and  New 
York,  1877), 


! 


Df 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE.  223 

being  of  God,  and  if  the  reason  and  the  con- 
science implanted  in  man,  "accusing  and  ex- 
cusing" one  another,  constitute  a  law  of  God 
within  him,  regulating  in  some  degree  his 
relations  to  God  and  to  his  fellow-men,  we 
have  a  sufficient  basis  for  the  natural  religion 
which  more  or  less  actuates  the  conduct  of 
every  human  being.  The  case  is  different 
with  revealed  religion.  Here  we  have  an  ap- 
parent interference  on  the  part  of  the  Creator 
with  his  own  work,  an  additional  intervention 
in  one  department  to  effect  results  which  else- 
where are  worked  out  by  the  ordinary  opera- 
tion of  natural  law.  In  revelation,  therefore, 
we  may  have  something  quite  out  of  the  ordi- 
nary course  of  nature.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is 
possible  that  even  here  we  may  have  something 
more  in  harmony  with  natural  laws  than  at  first 
sight  appears. 

It  cannot  truly  be  said  that  a  revelation  from 
God  to  man  is  improbable  from  the  point  of 
view  of  science.  Physical  laws  and  brute  in- 
stincts are  in  their  nature  unvarying,  and  nei- 
ther require  nor  admit  of  intervention.  But 
the  reason  and  the  will  of  free  agents  are  in 
this  respect  different.  Though  necessarily  un- 
.  der  law,  they  can  judge  and  decide  between 


f 


234  FACTS  AND  FANCIES 

one  law  and  another,  and  can  even  evade  or 
counteract  one  law  by  employing  another,  or 
can  resolve  to  be  disobedient.  Rational  free 
agents  may  thus  enter  into  courses  not  in  har- 
mony with  their  own  interests  or  their  relations 
to  their  surroundings.  Hence,  so  soon  as  it 
pleased  God  to  introduce  in  any  part  of  the 
universe  a  free  rational  will  gifted  with  certain 
powers  over  lower  nature,  only  two  courses 
were  possible :  either  God  must  leave  such  free 
agent  wholly  to  his  own  devices,  making  him  a 
god  on  a  small  scale,  and  so  far  practically  ab- 
dicating in  his  favor,  or  he  must  place  him  un- 
der some  law,  and  this  not  of  the  nature  of 
mere  physical  compulsion — ^which,  on  the  hy- 
pothesis, would  be  inadmissible — ^but  in  the  na- 
ture of  requirements  addressed  to  his  reason 
and  his  conscience.  Hence  w^j  might  infer  a 
priori  the  probability  of  some  sort  of  communi- 
cation between  God  and  man.  Further,  did 
we  find  such  rational  creature  beginning,  on  his 
introduction  into  the  world,  to  mar  the  face  of 
nature,  to  inflict  unnecessary  suffering  or  injury 
on  lower  creatures  or  on  members  of  his  own 
species,  to  disregard  the  moral  instincts  im- 
planted in  him,  or  to  disown  the  God  who  had 
created  him,  we  should  still  more  distincdy  per- 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE.  225 

ceive  the  need  of  revelation.  This  would  in 
such  case  be  no  more  at  variance  with  science 
or  with  natural  law  than  the  e*ducation  given  by 
wise  parents  to  their  children,  or  the  laws  pro- 
mulgated by  a  wi^e  government  for  the  guidance 
of  its  subjects,  both  of  which  are,  and  are  in- 
tended to  be,  interventions  affecting  the  ordi- 
nary course  of  affairs. 

Of  necessity,  all  this  proceeds  on  the  suppo- 
sition that  there  is  a  God.  But  in  certain  dis- 
cussions now  prevalent  as  to  the  "  orgin  of  re- 
ligion," it  is  customary  quietly  to  assume  that 
there  is  no  God  to  be  known,  and  conse- 
quently that  religion  must  be  a  mere  gratuitous 
invention  of  man.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say, 
however,  that  any  scientific  conception  of  the 
unity  of  nature  and  of  man's  place  in  it  must 
forbid  our  making  atheistic  assumptions.  If 
man  were  a  mere  product  of  blind,  unintelli- 
gent chance,  the  idea  of  a  God  was  not  likely 
ever  to  have  occurred  to  him,  still  less  to  have 
become  the  common  property  of  all  races  of 
men.  In  like  manner,  there  is  no  scientific 
basis  for  the  assumption  that  man  originated 
in  a  low  and  bestial  type,  and  that  his  religion 
developed  itself  by  degrees  from  the  instincts 
of  lower  animals,  from  which  man  is  supposed 


226  FACTS  AND  FANCIES 

to  have  originated.  Such  suppositions  are  un- 
scientific (i)  because  no  ancient  remains  of  such 
low  forms  of  man*  are  known  ;  (2)  because  the 
lowest  types  of  man  now  extant  can  be  proved 
to  be  degraded  descendants  of  higher  types ; 
(3)  because,  if  man  had  originated  in  a  low 
condition,  this  would  not  have  diminished  the 
probability  of  a  divine  revelation  being  given 
to  promote  his  elevation. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  a  sad  reality  that 
man  tends  to  sink  from  high  ideal  morality  and 
reason  into  debasing  vices  and  gross  supersti- 
tions thaf  are  not  natural,  but  which,  on  the 
contrary,  place  him  at  variance  with  natural  as 
well  as  with  moral  law.  Thus  the  actual  and 
the  possible  debasement  of  man,  instead  of 
proving  his  bestial  origin,  only  increases  the 
need  of  a  divine  revelation  for  his  improve- 
ment. 

But,  supposing  the  need  of  a  revelation  to 
be  admitted,  other  questions  might  arise  as  to 
its  mode.  Here  the  anticipations  of  science 
would  be  guided  by  the  analogy  of  nature. 
We  should  suppose  that  the  revelation  would 
be  made  through  the  medium  of  the  beings  it 
was  intended  to  affect  It  would  be  a  revela- 
tion impressed  on  human  minds  and  expressed 


I 


h 


1  / 


m  MODERN  SCIENCE.  22/ 

in  human  language.  It  might  be  in  the  form 
of  laws  with  penalties  attached,  or  in  that  of 
persuasions  addressed  to  the  reason  and  the 
sentiments.  It  would  probably  be  gradual  and 
progressive — at  first  simple,  and  later  more 
complex  and  complete.  It  would  thus  become 
historical,  and  would  be  related  to  the  stages 
of  that  progress  which  it  was  intended  to  pro- 
mote. It  would  necessarily  be  incomplete,  more 
especially  in  its  earlier  portions,  and  it  would 
always  be  under  the  necessity  of  more  or  less 
rudely  representing  divine  and  heavenly  things 
by  earthly  figures.  Being  human  in  its  medium, 
it  would  have  the  characteristics  and  the  idio- 
syncrasies of  man  to  a  certain  extent,  except  in 
so  far  as  it  might  please  God  to  communicate  it 
directly  through  a  perfect  humanity  identified 
with  divinity,  or  through  higher  and  more  per- 
fect intelligences  than  man. 

We  should  further  expect  that  such  revela- 
tion would  not  conflict  with  what  is  good  in 
natural  religion  or  in  the  natural  emotions  and 
sentiments  of  man ;  that  it  would  not  contradict 
natural  facts  or  laws;  and  that  it  would  take 
advantage  of  the  familiar  knowledge  of  man- 
kind in  order  to  illustrate  such  higher  spiritual 
truths  as  cannot  be  expressed  in  human  Ian- 


228 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


guage.  Such  a  revelation  would  of  necessity 
require  that  we  should  receive  it  in  faith,  but 
faith  resting  on  evidence  derived  from  things 
known,  and  from  the  analogy  of  the  revelation 
'tself  with  what  God  reveals  in  nature.  It 
would  be  no  valid  objection  to  such  a  revela- 
tion to  say  that  it  is  anthropomorphic,  since, 
in  the  nature  of  the  case,  it  must  come  through 
man  and  be  suited  to  man ;  nor  would  it  be  any 
valid  objection  that  it  is  figurative,  for  truth  as 
to  spiritual  realities  must  always  be  expressed 
in  terms  of  known  phenomena  of  the  natural 
world. 

It  has  been  objected,  though  not  on  behalf 
of  science,  that  such  a  revelation,  if  it  related 
to  things  discoverable  by  man,  would  be  useless, 
while,  if  it  related  to  things  not  discoverable,  it 
could  not  be  understood.  This  is,  however,  a 
mere  play  upon  words,  and  reminds  one  of 
the  doctrine  attributed  to  the  Arabian  caliph 
with  reference  to  the  Alexandrian  Library :  If 
its  books  Contain  -;7hat  is  written  in  the  Koran, 
they  are  useless ;  if  anything  different,  they  are 
injurious ;  therefore  let  them  be  destroyed.  It 
would  indeed  be  subversive  of  all  education, 
human  as  well  as  divine ;  for  the  essence  of  this 
is  to  take  advantage  of  what  the  pupil  knows, 


ssity 
,  but 
lings 
ation 
.     It 
ivela- 
since, 
rough 
le  any 
Lith  as 
ressed 
latural 

behalf 
related 
iseless, 
able,  it 
ever,  a 
ane  of 
caliph 

ary:  If 
Koran, 
hey  are 
yed.  It 
ucation, 
e  of  this 
knows. 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


229 


and  to  build  on  it  acquirements  which,  unaided, 
he  could  not  have  attained. 

But,  though  all  may  agree  as  to  the  possi- 
bility, or  even  the  probability,  of  a  revelation, 
many  may  dissent  from  particular  dogmas  con- 
tained in  or  implied  by  the  particular  form  of 
revelation  in  which  Christians   believe.     It  is 
true  that  this  dissent  is  based,  not  so  much  on 
science  as  on  alleged  opposition  to  human  sen- 
timents ;  but  it  is  more  or  less  supposed  to  be 
reinforced  by  scientific  facts  and  laws.     Of  doc- 
trines supposed  to  be  objectionable  from  these 
points  of  view,  I  may  name  the  reality  of  mir- 
acles and  of  prophecy;  the  efficacy  of  prayer 
and  of  atonement  or  sacrifice ;  and  the  perma- 
nence of  the  consequences  of  sin.     Admitting 
that  these  doctrines  are  not  original  discoveries 
of  man,  but  revealed  to  him,  and  that  they  are 
not  founded  on  science,  it  may  nevertheless  be 
easily  shown  that  they  are  in  harmony  with  the 
analogy  of  nature  in  a  greater  degree   than 
either  their  friends  or  their  opponents  usually 
suppose. 

Miracles— or  "  signs,"  as  they  are  more  prop- 
erly called  in  the  New  Testament — are  some- 
times stated  to  imply  suspension  of  natural 
law.     If  they  were  such,  and  were  alleged  to 

2C 


230  FACTS -AND  FANCIES 

be  produced  by  any  power  short  of  that  of  the 
Lawmaker  himself,  they  would  be  incredible; 
and  if  asserted  to  be  by  his  power,  they  would 
be  so  far  incredible  as  implying  changeableness, 
and  therefore  imperfection.  It  may  be  affirmed, 
however,  of  the  miracles  recorded  in  Scripture, 
that  they  do  not  require  suspension  of  natu- 
ral laws,  but  merely  modifications  of  the  opera- 
tion and  peculiar  interactions  of  these.  Many 
of  them,  indeed,  profess  to  be  merely  unusual 
natural  effects  arranged  for  special  purposes, 
and  depending  for  their  miraculous  character 
on  their  appositeness  in  time  to  certain  circum- 
stances. This  is  the  case,  for  instance,  with 
the  plagues  of  Egypt,  the  crossing  of  the  Red 
Sea,  and  the  supply  of  quails  to  the  Israelites. 
Miracles,  whether  performed  as  attestations  cf 
revelation  or  as  works  of  mercy  or  of  judg- 
ment, belong  to  the  domain  of  natural  law,  but 
to  those  operations  of  it  which  are  beyond  hu- 
man control  or  foresight.  Their  nature  in  this 
respect  we  can  understand  by  considering  the 
many  operations  possible  to  civilized  men  which 
may  appear  miraculous  to  a  savage,  and  which, 
from  his  point  of  view,  may  be  amply  sufficient 
as  evidence  of  the  superior  knowledge  and 
power  of  him  who  performs  them.     That  one 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


231 


It 

Id 


man  should  be  able  instantaneously  to  trans- 
mit his  thoughts  to  another  situated  a  thousand 
miles  away  was,  until  the  invention  of  the  elec- 
tric telegraph,  impossible.  The  actual  perform- 
ance of  such  an  operation  would  have  been  as 
much  a  miracle  as  the  communication  of  thought 
from  one  planej  to  another  would  be  now.  But 
if  man  can  thus  work  miracles,  why  should  not 
the  Almighty  do  so,  when  higher  moral  ends 
are  to  be  served  by  apparent  interference  with 
the  ordinary  course  of  matter  and  force  ?  Ad- 
mitting the  existence  of  God,  physical  science 
can  have  nothing  to  say  against  miracles.  On 
the  contrary,  it  can  assure  us  of  the  probability 
that  if  God  reveals  himself  to  us  at  all  by  nat- 
ural means,  such  revelation  will  probably  be 
miraculous. 

If  the  possibility  of  God  communicating  with 
his  rational  creatures  be  conceded,  then  the  ob- 
jections taken  to  prophecy  lose  all  value.  If 
anything  known  to  God  and  unknown  to  man 
can  be  revealed,  things  past  and  future  may  be 
revealed  as  well  as  things  present.  Science 
abounds  in  prophecy.  All  through  the  geolog- 
ical history  there  have  been  prophetic  types, 
mute  witnesses  to  coming  facts.  Minute  dis- 
turbances of  heavenly  bodies,  altogether  inap- 


.-.JJ 


232 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES 


preciable  by  the  ordinary  observer,  enable  the 
astronomer  to  predict  the  discovery  of  new 
planets.  A  line  in  a  spectrum,  without  signifi- 
cance to  the  uninitiated,  foretells  a  new  element. 
The  merest  fragment,  sufficient  only  for  micro- 
scopic examination,  enables  the  palaeontologist 
to  describe  to  incredulous  audit(ors  some.organ- 
ism  altogether  unknown  in  its  entire  structures. 
What  possible  reason  can  there  be  for  exclud- 
ing such  indications  of  the  past  and  the  future 
from  a  revelation  made  by  him  who  knows  per- 
fectly the  end  from  the  beginning,  and  to  whom 
the  future  results  of  human  actions  to  the  end 
of  time  must  be  as  evident  as  the  simplest  train 
of  causes  and  effects  is  to  us  ?  It  is  Huxley, 
I  think,  who  says  that  if  the  laws  affecting  hu- 
man conduct  were  fully  known  to  us,  it  would 
have  been  possible  to  calculate  a  thousand  years 
ago  the  exact  state  of  affairs  in  Britain  at  this 
moment.  Probably  such  a  calculation  might  be 
too  complicated  for  us,  even  if  the  data  were 
given ;  but  it  cannot  be  too  complicated  for 
the  Divine  Mind,  and  possibly  might  even 
be  mastered  by  some  intelligences  in  the 
universe  subject  to  God,  but  higher  than 
man. 

That  there  should  be  suffering  at  all  in  the 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


233 


le 

r 
In 

le 
In 


universe  is,  no  doubt,  a  mysterious  thing ;  but 
the  fact  is  evident,  and  certain  benefits  which 
flow  from  it  are  also  evident.  Indeed,  we  fail 
to  see  how  a  world  of  sentient  beings  could 
continue  to  exist,  unless  the  penalty  of  suffer- 
ing were  attached  to  natural  law.  Further,  all 
such  penalties  are,  in  consequence  of  the  per- 
manence of  matter  and  the  conservation  of 
force,  necessarily  permanent,  unless  in  cases 
where  some  reaction  sets  in  under  the  influence 
of  some  other  law  or  force  than  that  which 
brings  the  penalty.  Even  in  this  case,  the  effect 
of  any  violation  of  any  natural  law  is  eternal 
and  infinite.  No  sane  man  doubts  this  in  the 
case  of  what  may  be  called  sins  against  nat- 
ural laws ;  but  many,  with  strange  inconsistency, 
doubt  and  disbelieve  it  in  the  higher  domain  of 
morals.  If  we  were  for  a  moment  to  admit 
the  materialist's  doctrine  that  appetites,  pas- 
sions, and  sentiments  are  merely  effects  of  phys- 
ical changes  in  nerve-cells,  then  we  should  be 
shut  up  to  the  conclusion  that  the  effects  of  any 
derangement  of  these  must  be  perpetual  and 
coextensive  with  the  universe.  Why  should  it 
be  otherwise  in  things  belonging  to  the  domains 
of  reason  and  conscience  ?     Further,  if  natural 

laws  are  the  expression  of  the  will  of  the  Cre- 
20  • 


234  •  FACTS  AND  FANCIES 

ator,  and  if  these  unfailingly  assert  themselves, 
and  must  do  so,  in  order  to  the  permanence  of 
the  material  universe,  would  not  analogy  teach 
that,  unless  the  Supreme  Being  is  wholly  bound 
up  in  material  processes,  and  is  altogether  in- 
different to  moral  considerations,  the  same  reg- 
ularity and  constancy  must  prevail  in  the  spirit- 
ual world  ? 

This  question  is  closely  connected  with  the 
ideas  of  sacrifice  and  atonement.  Nothing  is 
more  certain  in  physics  than  that  action  and  re- 
action are  equal,  and  that  no  effect  can  be  pro- 
duced without  an  adequate  cause.  It  results 
from  this  that  every  action  must  involve  a  cor- 
responding expenditure  of  matter  and  force. 
Anything  else  would  be  pure  magic ;  which,  we 
know,  is  nonsense.  Thus  every  intervention 
on  behalf  of  others  must  imply  a  correspond- 
ing sacrifice.  We  cannot  raise  a  fallen  child 
or  aid  the  poor  or  the  hungry  without  a  sac- 
rifice of  power  or  means  proportioned  to  the 
result.  So,»in  the  moral  world,  degradation 
cannot  be  remedied  nor  punishment  averted 
without  corresponding  sacrifice;  and  this,  it  may 
be,  on  the  part  of  those  who  are  in  no  degree 
blameworthy.  If  men  have  fallen  into  moral 
evil  and  God  proposes  to  elevate  them  from 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE.  '  235 

• 

this  condition,  this  must  be  done  by  some  cor- 
responding expenditure  of  force,  else  we  have 
one  of  those  miracles  which  would  imply  a  sub- 
version of  law  of  the  most  portentous  kind. 
The  moral  stimulus  given  by  the  sacrifice  itself 
is  a  secondary  consideration  to  this  great  law 
of  equivalency  of  cause  and  effect.  .  There  is, 
therefore,  a  perfect  conformity  to  natural  anal- 
ogy in  the  Christian  idea  of  the  substitution  of 
the  pure  and  perfect  Man  for  the  sinner,  as  well 
as  in  that  of  the  putting  forth  of  the  divine 
power  manifested  in  him  to  raise  and  restore 
the  fallen. 

The  efficacy  of  prayer  is  one  of  the  last 
things  that  a  scientific  naturalist  should  ques- 
tion, if  he  is  at  the  same  time  a  theist.  Prayer 
is  itself  one  of  the  laws  of  nature,  and  one  of 
those  that  show  in  the  finest  way  how  higher 
laws  override  and  modify  those  that  are  lower. 
The  young  ravens,  we  are  told,  cry  to  God  ;  and 
so  they  literally  do ;  and  their  cry  is  answered, 
for  the  parent-iavens,  cruel  and  voracious,  un- 
der the  impulse  of  a  God-given  instinct  range 
over  land  and  water  and  exhaust  every  energy 
that  they  may  satisfy  that  cry.  The  bleat  of 
the  lamb  will  not  only  meet  with  response  from 
the  mother-ewe,  but  will  even  exercise  a  physi- 


236  FACTS  AND  FANCIES 

ological  effect  in  promoting  the  secretion  of 
milk  in  her  udder.  The  mother  who  hears  the 
cry  of  her  child,  crushed  under  some  weighty 
thing  which  has  fallen  on  it,  will  never  pause 
to  consider  that  it  is  the  law  of  gravitation  which 
has  caused  the  accident ;  she  will  defy  the  law 
of  gravitation,  and  if  necessary  will  pray  any 
one  who  is  near  to  help  her.  Prayer,  in  short, 
is  a  natural  power  so  important  that  without  it 
the  young  of  most  of  the  higher  animals  would 
have  little  chance  of  life ;  and  it  triumphs  over 
almost  every  other  natural  law  which  may  stand 
in  its  way.  If,  then,  irrational  animals  can  over- 
come the  forces  of  dead  nature  in  answer  to 
prayer ;  if  man  himself,  in  answer  to  the  cry  of 
distress,  can  do  things  in  ordinary  circumstances 
almost  impossible, — how  foolish  is  it  to  suppose 
that  this  link  of  connection  cannot  subsist  be- 
tween God  and  his  rational  offspring!  One 
wonders  that  any  man  of  science  should  for  a 
moment  entertain  such  an  idea,  if,  indeed,  he 
has  any  belief  whatever  in  the  existence  of  a 
God. 

There  is  another  aspect  of  prayer  insisted  on 
in  revelation  on  which  the  observation  of  nature 
throws  some  light.    In  the  case  of  animals,  there 


IN  MODERN  SCIENCE,  237 

must  be  a  certain  relation  between  the  one  that 
prays  and  the  one  that  answers-— a  filial  relation, 
perhaps — and  in  any  case  there  must  be  a  cor- 
respondence between  the  language  of  prayer 
and  the  emotions  of  the  creature  appealed  to. 
Except  in  a  few  cases  where  human  training  has 
modified  instinct,  the  cry  of  one  species  of  an- 
imal awakes  no  response  in  another  of  a  differ- 
ent kind.  So  prayer  to  God  must  be  in  the 
Spirit  of  God.  It  must  also  be  the  cry  of  real 
need,  and  with  reference  to  needs  which  have 
his  sympathy.  There  is  a  prayer  which  never 
reaches  God,  or  which  is  even  an  abomination 
to  him ;  and  there  is  prayer  prompted  by  the 
indwelling  Spirit  of  God,  which  cannot  be  ut- 
tered in  human  words,  yet  will  surely  be  an- 
swered. All  this  is  so  perfectly  in  accordance 
with  natural  analogies,  that  it  strikes  one 
acquainted  with  nature  as  almost  a  matter 
of  course.  . 

In  tracing  these  analogies,  I  do  not  desire  to 
imply  that  natural  science  can  itself  teach  us 
religion,  or  that  it  is  to  afford  the  test  of  what  is 
true  in  spiritual  things.  I  have  merely  wished 
to  direct  attention  to  obvious  analogies  between 
things' natural  and  things  spiritual,  which  show 


238 


FACTS  AND  FANCIES. 


that  there  is  no  such  antagonism  between  sci- 
ence and  revelation  as  many  suppose,  and  that, 
in  grand  essential  laws  and  principles,  it  may  be 
true  that  earth  is 

**  But  the  shadow  of  heaven,  and  things  therein 
Each  to  the  other  like  more  than  on  earth  is  thought." 


THE  END. 


